PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER &C.) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
The main Amendment to this Bill is the scheduling of an agreement with the Holyhead Waterworks Company, whose undertaking has been transferred. The other Amendments are of a purely drafting nature.

Question put, and agreed to.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Major Milner: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
The Amendments to this Bill fall, roughly, into three groups—the protective Clauses, which are quite usual, drafting Amendments, and Amendments suggested by Government Departments. I should be happy to go into detail if the House desired it.

Question put, and agreed to.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords]

Ordered:
That in the case of the Derwent Valley Water Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 92, 231 and 258 be suspended and that the Bill be now considered, amended prints having been previously deposited"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill considered accordingly.

Motion made,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means] (King's Consent signified.)

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOMB ATTACKS (EVACUATION)

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade the steps taken to meet the increased need for children's footwear and clothing in South Wales and other reception areas.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): As I informed my hon. Friend last Tuesday, I have instructed my area distribution officers to keep a close watch on supplies of clothing and other essential goods in reception areas, and if necessary, I will direct additional supplies to these areas.

Mr. Williams: Could my right hon. Friend indicate what is being done between his Department and other Departments?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend asked me a Question regarding clothing and footwear. The Board of Trade are endeavouring to put supplies at the disposal of local authorities in evacuation areas in order that every child, every official evacuee, shall be able to leave the evacuation areas with a reasonable supply of clothing and footwear, and so that they shall not cause an immediate run on the shops in the reception areas. That is our aim. As I have said, if I find from my local officers that that is not succeeding I will do my best, out of the limited total of available supplies, to send more to the reception areas.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, taking steps to secure additional supplies of household utensils of all kinds, which are very short in evacuation areas and elsewhere, and are badly needed for evacuees?

Mr. Dalton: I am glad my hon. Friend has asked me that, because it enables me to say that the Ministry of Health is arranging for local authorities to lend essential bedding, camp beds, crockery, pots, pans, etc. to householders who need extra equipment for evacuees. So far as possible I am furnishing these supplies


at the evacuation end, but if that is not possible, we will send them to the reception areas.

Sir Joseph Lamb: When the Minister refers to local authorities, does he mean the education committees of local authorities?

Mr. Dalton: The arrangements are made through the Ministry of Health; I assist in accordance with that Ministry's desires.

Mr. Riley: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the great difficulty of mothers in finding supplies of essential articles for their young children?

Mr. Dalton: I have already said that we are endeavouring to equip children at the evacuation points. I hope there will be no additional pressure at the reception points.

Lieutenant-Colonel Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider reopening the restricted zones for persons who have been bombed out of their homes, and who wish to reside in one of these zones.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Persons holding a certificate, issued by a local authority, that they have been rendered homeless as a result of enemy action, can enter the Protected Area to reside with relatives or friends therein.

Lieutenant-Colonel Mayhew: Will my right hon. Friend consider the special case of bombed-out persons who need railway facilities to get to their work, and who cannot find any adjacent accommodation?

Sir J. Grigg: I am very sorry, but, again, I must say that that part of the problem is not one for me to solve.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Lancashire (Development Areas)

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many of the factories in Burnley, now engaged on Government work, he proposes to maintain in production after the war in order to prevent a recurrence of the mass

unemployment that existed in the area in the pre-war years;
(2) what parts of Lancashire are to be regarded as development areas.

Mr. Dalton: I am glad to say that during the war there has been a large amount of new industrial building in Lancashire and for this reason its need for further industrial development is less urgent than that of other areas. I hope, as I have previously said to the House, that these factories, particularly those of modern construction, will be fully used after the war.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in parts of Lancashire, especially in the Wigan coal area, no new industries of any kind have been established, and that nearly all the working people are employed several miles away from their homes?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but what I have said is undoubtedly true. Lancashire, as compared with certain other areas, has had a substantial amount of new industrial building and that means that its need for further industrial building is less than that of others.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend realise that whole areas in some parts of the country have not had any war factories during the war?

Mr. Dalton: I am well aware of that.

Mr. Burke: Why must Lancashire be regarded as a unit? Other parts of the country are not so regarded, and parts of Lancashire have been as badly hit as any other parts in the country.

Mr. Dalton: If we break these things up into too small units we cannot have an effective plan. We must handle these areas in broad, large units but we will do our best to see that factories now working for the war effort, or on civilian work, will continue to be fully used after the war.

Cotton Industry (Reconstruction)

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the statement and resolution from the Cotton Board suggesting changes in the structure of the cotton industry on the lines of larger units; and if he can make a statement indicative of Government policy on the matter.

Mr. Dalton: I have discussed the statement and resolution to which my hon. Friend refers, with the chairman of the Cotton Board, and I agreed with him that they should be published. I note with interest that the Cotton Board Committee recognise the desirability, with a view to greater efficiency, of larger units in the cotton industry, but I also note that they are strongly opposed to legal compulsion to achieve this object.

Mr. Burke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the cotton industry is to get back to anything like its former strength drastic and far-reaching proposals will be required?

Captain Prescott: In view of the vital importance of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the appropriate quarters, and have an early day set aside for a Debate on the whole subject?

Mr. Dalton: It is not for me to indicate that, but I should be glad of such an opportunity later.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend has now received reports from several representative organisations? If so, have they been considered and has not the time arrived when this Department should take the initiative, and make recommendations which can be considered by the whole industry?

Mr. Dalton: I have received a number of representations, some of which take the form of saying that they do not want legal intervention in these matters. I am anxious to carry the various sections of the industry with me in any proposals I put up.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that representatives of the industry will be fully consulted before any final decision is made?

Mr. Dalton: We are in constant touch with them.

Egypt, Italy and the Middle East

Mr. Quinton Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government in 1944 to promote British trade with Egypt, Italy and the Middle East.

Mr. Dalton: I am anxious that United Kingdom trade with these markets shall be expanded as soon as supplies and shipping permit. At present, the aim of His Majesty's Government, in collaboration with our Allies, is to see that the essential war-time needs of Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries are met. Trade with that part of Italy, which has been liberated, is wholly on Government account.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the correct answer to my question, "Nothing," and will not the right hon. Gentleman begin to take steps to promote our trade in that area after the war?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman's first suggestion is incorrect. It is not "nothing" to keep Egypt and the Middle East supplied with their war-time necessities; it is a considerable achievement, which has been carried out by joint Anglo-American collaboration through the Middle East Supply Services.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Does the Minister contemplate the appointment of an agency or British representatives out there?

Mr. Dalton: We have representatives there now.

Mr. Molson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a visit by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to the Middle East would have a good effect?

Mr. Hogg: If the answer to my Question is not "Nothing," will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he has done to promote British trade after the war in this area?

Carpets (Price)

Major Conant: asked the President of the Board of Trade when carpet manufacturers will be informed what price they are entitled to charge for carpets manufactured under the A licences issued to them on 11th February.

Mr. Dalton: Such licences have been issued to carpet manufacturers since 1942 and the prices which they may charge are those approved by the Central Price Regulation Committee in November, 1941. Proposals are now under consideration for the manufacture of a further limited quantity of carpets of specified types, and for the fixing of prices for these.

Major Conant: When will these proposals become effective?

Mr. Dalton: The trade is being taken into consultation about it now. We are aiming at getting a number of serviceable carpets of a cheaper kind. The prices, I understand, will be lower than those charged under the A licence.

Tyne Shipyard Sites (Post-war Use)

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the decision not to reopen the Northumberland and Palmers shipyards on the Tyne, what heavy industries he proposes to establish on these vacant sites.

Mr. Dalton: No decision has yet been taken regarding the post-war use of these shipyards.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that all factories would be used, what does he propose to do with these sites? They have been unoccupied since the beginning of the war. Is it not time that post-war possibilities were taken into consideration and some decision come to, because we are tired of waiting?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rhys Davies.

Miss Ward: Am I not entitled to an answer to my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the question was so long that the hon. Lady was not entitled to an answer.

Boot Repairs

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in a certain area of which he has been informed, it is impossible for the local population to secure boot repairs; that they are informed that they must wait for several weeks because there is so much repair work in hand for American troops which must have priority; and will he see that in this and any other respect over which he has control, civilians shall not be placed at a disadvantage with soldiers.

Mr. Dalton: My regional directors of boot repairs have instructions to see that an adequate service of civilian repairs is maintained in all areas and that no area is overloaded with Service work. The repairer to whom my hon. Friend refers had, without the knowledge of my regional director, accepted Service repairs greatly

in excess of the number specified in his contract. I am glad to say that the matter has now been adjusted.

Mr. Davies: Will not my right hon. Friend get in touch with the Ministry of Labour, because the problem is affected by the fact that repairers have been called up?

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid that trouble is not confined to boot repairers. A lot of people have been called up.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has not been called up.

Mr. Dalton: Not yet, nor has my hon. Friend.

Sir Percy Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many regional inspectors there are and what are their qualifications?

Mr. Dalton: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE

Jewish Refugees (Neutral Countries)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the offer of Admiral Horthy to permit Jewish children to leave Hungary in cases in which neutral countries are willing to receive the children; and whether assurance will be given to neutral countries willing to accept these children that provision will be made for a corresponding increase in food supplies to be allowed to reach them through the blockade.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have been informed by the International Red Cross of the offer referred to in the Question. As regards the second part of the Question both His Majesty's Government and the United States Government have always been anxious to facilitate the reception in neutral countries both of Jewish children from any part of Axis Europe and also of children from enemy occupied countries. On a number of occasions, particularly during the past year, assurances have been given to certain neutral Governments that if schemes of this kind could be arranged, His Majesty's Government and the United States Government would sanction the


importation of additional supplies through the blockade over and above the normal blockade quotas which such countries are permitted to receive through our controls. Since receiving the communication from the International Red Cross to which I referred, His Majesty's Government have informed these Governments that our offer of increased imports holds good in this particular case. I understand that a similar assurance has been or is being given by the United States Government.

Mr. Harvey: Has any neutral Government indicated willingness to receive these children?

Mr. Foot: We have not yet had time to receive an answer to this particular communication but it is only fair to say that certain neutral Governments, notably those of Switzerland and Sweden, have always shown considerable willingness to receive refugees from Axis Europe.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: In view of the specific terms of the alleged offer from Admiral Horthy, would not the hon. Gentleman consider conveying through the appropriate channel the acceptance of these terms, so that any children exported from Hungary will be accepted?

Mr. Foot: The offer, of course, was communicated to us through the International Red Cross and we have replied to the International Red Cross saying that, as far as this part of the offer is concerned, we are perfectly willing to do everything in our power to see that these children are evacuated as rapidly as possible.

Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that it always has been possible to put these children into neutral countries? The difficulty has been to get them out of the other countries.

Mr. Foot: That is correct. It has not been the fault of neutral Governments that evacuation schemes have not operated long before this. In every case, it has been the reluctance of the occupying authorities, or the Nazi Government, to let the children go.

Swedish Iron Ore (Exports to Germany)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare why the Swedish shipping firm of Messrs. Axel Johnson and the firm owning and operat-

ing the Grangesberg Mine now supplying iron ore to Germany are not included in the black list.

Mr. Foot: As regards the first firm mentioned in the Question, namely, Rederi A-B Nordstjernan, I have no evidence which would justify its inclusion in the Statutory black list. My information is that none of its vessels are being used to carry iron ore to Germany. Moreover, five ships belonging to this firm are now on charter to the Ministry of War Transport. As regards the company which owns the Grangesberg Mines, the only reason why we have not as yet included its name in the list is that such action did not seem likely to diminish the volume of shipments of Swedish iron ore to Germany. I must, however, make it dear that we should not hesitate to blacklist this Company if at any time we thought that its appearance in the list would serve any useful purpose.

Sir A. Southby: Will the hon. Gentleman look again into the question whether the Axel Johnson ships are not in fact conveying this ore to Germany? Is it not a fact that Wallenbergs are the firm behind this Grangesberg Mine?

Mr. Foot: In reply to the first part of the question, we have complete information as to the activities of all ships owned by this company and we have complete information as to what they are doing. In answer to the second part, on one or two occasions the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to Wallenbergs. I must make it clear—I speak from personal experience —that Mr. Marcus Wallenberg has throughout the war been a good friend to this country.

Sir A. Southby: But the hon. Gentleman does not say that he is not the owner of the mine now supplying ore to Germany?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the answer I gave him last week, he will see that I gave particulars as to the ownership of this mine. The Enskilda Bank, which is the concern in which Wallenbergs are interested, has little or no interest in the Grangesberg Mine.

Greece (Food Supplies)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare, whether he will give


the latest available information on the position of the civilian population in Greece as regards food supply and the measures being taken to relieve grave malnutrition.

Mr. Foot: As the reply is a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

As a result of the fact that the harvest has just been gathered there has been a recent improvement. Nevertheless it would be misleading to generalise about the food situation in Greece as a whole, since conditions vary widely between the larger cities, the provinces, especially those areas where there is active guerilla warfare, and the islands. There has undoubtedly been a considerable improvement over the past year in the circumstances of the urban population, an improvement which is reflected in the vital statistics. In those areas which are the scene of active conflict food supplies remain a very serious problem. In certain districts conditions of scarcity have been considerably aggravated by the action of the German authorities in destroying or seizing native produce, allegedly as a reprisal for guerilla activities. Moreover, military operations and the requisitioning of lorries involve considerable interference with transport and distribution. Conditions of acute shortage continue among a large part of the island population, owing to the great difficulty of sending supplies. As regards the last part of the Question the House is already aware that relief foodstuffs are being shipped to Greece at the rate of approximately 32,000 tons a month. In addition, arrangements have recently been made for supplies to be sent in Turkish coastal vessels to Mitylene and Chios, and the first cargo has been delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Casualties (Notification)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that Major Lockwood, of a battalion of which he has been informed, was killed on 26th June; that the widow was notified of this event on 10th July by a letter from the battalion commander; and why, up to the 12th July, no official notification has reached her;
(2) whether he is aware that Lieutenant Firth, of a battalion of which he has been informed, died of wounds on 1st July; that his widow received notification on 5th July that he had been dangerously wounded on 26th June; and why no official notification of his death reached her until 16th July.

Sir J. Grigg: I will, with permission, answer Nos. 14 and 15 together.

Mr. Molson: Since these two Questions relate to separate individuals, I prefer them to be answered separately.

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will listen to my answer. Before dealing with the specific cases I will make a short general statement about the delays which may unfortunately arise in reporting casualties.
When a casualty occurs it is the duty of the unit concerned to notify it to the base. As the hon. Member will readily appreciate, this may be a difficult duty to carry out in the midst of a battle. A further difficulty arises from the fact that in the early stages of an operation such as this, the troops overseas are, in fact, merely a bridgehead. During this stage their base is separated from them by the Channel. The delays which may occur from these factors are, I am afraid, unavoidable, though of course they are none the less distressing for the relatives concerned.
I have also seen some complaints that the official notification of a casualty is often preceded by an unofficial letter from the Commanding Officer or chaplain of the unit or even from a friend of the man concerned. Before an official notification can be sent the facts must he most carefully checked and in view of the great speeding up of mails from Normandy it is possible, and indeed probable, that relatives may in certain cases hear unofficially of the casualty before the official notification arrives. This is even more probable in cases where an officer or man has been evacuated by air to a hospital in this country.
I am afraid, however, that in these specific cases raised in the hon. Member's Questions there was undoubtedly exceptional delay, which I very greatly regret, in reporting the casualties to the War Office. This delay arose from circumstances which are still being investigated, and which I hope will not recur.

Mr. Molson: May I put down a further Question upon these two cases later in order to elucidate the facts?

Sir J. Grigg: Certainly, Sir, and I will, if I have not got the facts by the time the House rises for the Summer Recess, send them in writing to the hon. Member.

Requisitioned Property (Release)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the importance of the forthcoming harvest, if training areas taken over under Defence Regulations 51 and 52, or such portions of them more distant from standing camps can now be released from use for military training owing to the changed circumstances, due to the campaign in Normandy having reduced the pressure on space for training in the United Kingdom.

Sir J. Grigg: I fully appreciate the importance to food production of the areas held under these Defence Regulations. This question has been for some time carefully considered by the War Office and the Ministry of Agriculture in the light of the changed conditions in this country, and several hundreds of thousands of acres have already been given up. I anticipate that, during the next few months and before the winter, a good deal more land will become available for derequisition. The nature and extent of the releases, however, must depend on operational factors.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the authorities concerned the importance of not going through standing crops immediately before harvest, but, if possible, to stick to the bare fallows because matters of that kind can easily be put right? Will he also convey to the United States authorities the gratitude of owners and occupiers for the care that has been shown?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly do the second, and I will consider the first.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether steps are being taken to release from requisition property which has become vacant.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 25th July.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of this property which has been released is still vacant, while there are families in the district in need of accommodation?

Sir J. Grigg: If it is released it has passed out of my control.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under whose control it is?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say that.

Parliamentary Franchise

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of pictorial poster methods used to encourage war savings, he will employ this method to encourage soldiers to sign the forms issued for the compilation of the election register.

Sir J. Grigg: This suggestion is being considered.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when some decision will be made about this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: The consideration has gone a good long way, and I think that there are posters in proof already.

Mr. Cocks: Would not an effective film be one of the right hon. Gentleman saying to the soldier, "Now is your chance of saying what you think about the War Office"?

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War, how many proxy application forms A.Fs.B. 76 were completed under A.C.I. 271 of 1943; whether these are at present valid; and whether the attention of all ranks has been specially drawn to the effect on these proxies of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that I am unable to give my hon. Friend the number of Army Forms B. 76 completed under A.C.I. 271 of 1943 as no records are kept. Proxy appointments made on this form are valid and will remain so until the new register under the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, comes into operation. The 1939 Register and all proxy appointments made on that register will then lapse. The attention of all ranks has been drawn to the necessity of making new proxy appointments on


A.F.B. 2626 so that their vote can still be exercised on their behalf if they are overseas at the time of an election.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many men who have completed Form AB 76 are not filling up AB 2626 under the delusion that the form already completed was valid?

Sir J. Grigg: I will consider including a reference to that fact in the reminder that I have to send out before very long.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if duplicate copies of completed electoral registration forms from any personnel are kept at stations overseas until the originals have been received by electoral registration officers in this country, so as to prevent persons being disenfranchised due to the loss of mails.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. Nor would this ensure that the personnel concerned were duly registered. The only way to do this would be to institute a system of acknowledging every form received from overseas. The difficulties in attempting to do this would certainly be formidable and probably insuperable.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at least one station overseas makes an extra copy of these forms to be kept until the originals have been safely received in this country? Is it not important to take that little extra trouble to see that Service men's rights are safeguarded?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not a question of taking extra trouble at that end, but all I can say is that if you take that extra trouble it will not do any good.

Home Guard (Busmen)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that busmen who are members of the Home Guard have frequently to use their rest day for Home Guard purposes; and whether, in view of the increasing strain of their duties, he will cause this position to be modified.

Sir J. Grigg: Instructions in amplification of Home Guard Regulations have already been issued, which lay down that men who are working long hours at work of national importance shall receive special consideration. Moreover, any

member of the Home Guard may apply to his commander for relief if he considers that he is unable to perform his Home Guard training and duty.

Mr. Sorensen: Has any representation been made by the unions of these men on this important matter?

Sir J. Grigg: Not to my knowledge. I have had one individual letter, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy. It rather calls in question his right to put the case on behalf of this organisation.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been approached by members of the Home Guard who are busmen?

Sir J. Grigg: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the letter.

Equipment Cleaning (Normandy)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War, what are the regulations now being applied to soldiers serving in Normandy about applying blanco to their equipment; and if he will assure the House that troops serving in Normandy are not being compelled to polish or maintain their kit to any excessive degree.

Sir J. Grigg: Each Army Commander is responsible for ensuring that the uniform and equipment of the soldiers under his command is maintained at the highest standard of cleanliness and smartness compatible with the conditions in which the troops are engaged. I am not aware of anything which would prevent me giving the assurance for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Strauss: While appreciating the need for cleanliness and smartness under all conditions wherever possible, may I ask whether it is necessary, in view of the acute shortage of many comforts for the men in Normandy, to send considerable quantities of blanco?

Sir J. Grigg: That is a different question. I do not know whether considerable quantities of blanco are being sent. All I know is that each Army commander concerned is entitled to lay down the standard which he considers necessary.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents informed me that he and his colleagues spent all one day unloading large quantities of blanco?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Spit and polish, Sir, do not win wars.

Royal Engineers (Expenditure Authorisation)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the maximum expenditure that a colonel, a brigadier and a major-general of the R.E.'s can authorise without reference to higher authority; and to what extent has this procedure been modified and centralised since the war began.

Sir J. Grigg: I will, with permission, circulate a statement about this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend make the most careful inquiry to see that the megalomaniac policy of centralisation, which leads to waste of time and money, is brought to an end?

Sir J. Grigg: When the hon. Gentleman reads my answer he will see that, so far from there being centralisation, there has been a good deal of decentralisation since the war. I have been accused of a good many things, but over-centralisation is not one of them.

Following is the statement:

My hon. Friend will realise that rank does not of itself carry with it financial powers: these are dependent upon appointments. There are no Major-Generals in the Royal Engineers executive in Home Commands. A Chief Engineer of the Command is a Brigadier. He now has powers to authorise local expenditure on stores up to £2,000. Prior to the war his powers were limited to £400. A Chief Engineer of a district is a Colonel: he has no local powers of purchase: under the present centralised accounting system such purchases are carried out centrally by the Chief Engineer of the Command. There was no such appointment as Chief Engineer of a district at Home before the war. As regards works services, authorisation is a matter for the Officer i/c Administration of Commands and Districts and not for the Royal Engineers.

Overseas Service (Married Personnel)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that on the conclusion of hostilities preferential treatment will be accorded to married officers and men now serving

abroad to facilitate their return to this country to rejoin their wives and families.

Sir J. Grigg: The Army Council's present policy does not differentiate in the matter of the length of service overseas between married and single men. I regret that I am not in a position to say what policy will be followed on the conclusion of hostilities. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply I gave my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) on 25th July.

Sir P. Hannon: Is not the question worthy of a little further consideration by the War Office? Is it not important that married men should get back to their families in the shortest possible time?

Sir J. Grigg: I can assure the hon. Member that this is a matter to which I have given constant consideration, and I have taken steps which I hope will improve the flow of people back from these distant theatres.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Do not the "old sweats" and veterans come first?

London Allowance

Lieut.-Colonel Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 3s. 6d. London allowance may be continued to be paid to the wife of a serving soldier resident in London who is forced to evacuate herself and her family into a safe area.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War why soldiers wives, who have been residing in West Ham and London in general, have their allowance cut down by 3s. 6d. when they decide to live outside the London area.

Sir J. Grigg: The London allowance of 3s, 6d. a week ceases to be paid to soldiers' families during their absence from the London postal area, except for a visit not exceeding four weeks. As a special and purely temporary arrangement, families which have left London since 13th June, when flying bombs began to reach London, will be allowed to continue to receive the allowance during absence, or will have it restored if already withdrawn, provided that they were in receipt of the allowance when they left London, and are still paying rent for their accommodation in London, and have not sublet it.

Mr. Sorensen: Will that continue indefinitely?

Sir J. Grigg: I said that it was a special and purely temporary arrangement. That means that it will presumably continue as long as the flying bomb menace is on us and that it will then be reconsidered.

Welsh Units

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make about Welsh troops serving out of this country.

Sir J. Grigg: Whenever the Commander-in-Chief responsible releases the name of a Welsh regiment which has taken part in a campaign in any theatre of war, all the information available is given to the Press. In this way publicity has been given to the Welsh Guards, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the South Wales Borderers and the Welch Regiment for gallant actions in which one or other of them has taken part in Norway, France and Flanders, Crete, Madagascar, Burma, Libya, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. I am most anxious that the achievements of all units should receive the public appreciation due to them, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commander-in-Chief will release these names as soon as it can be done without prejudicing the success of the operations or the safety of the troops engaged.

Compassionate Posting (Business Grounds)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War why compassionate posting is never granted on business grounds.

Sir J. Grigg: When the soldier is at home, cases of this nature are usually dealt with by the grant of a period of release from the Army in order to enable the soldier to make the necessary arrangements for his business to be carried on. If a man is posted near his business no guarantee can be given that he will be able to spend the necessary time away from his military duties and he may well be tempted to neglect those duties.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, where a wife is struggling to keep a small business going, it may make all the difference if her husband is within reach so as to give occasional advice?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, but the main consideration in that case is that he could do that on his periods of leave. If he is posted there, on the spot, it is very likely that he will tend to devote more time to his business than to his Army duties.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Petherick: Would not my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter in view of the fact that, from the point of view of the Army, it may often be more economical to allow a man to have week-ends off, so as to attend to his business, instead of giving him a long period of compassionate leave, meaning his absence from the Army for, say, three months?

Sir J. Grigg: A man is entitled to a certain amount of privilege leave, and there is no earthly reason why he should not utilise it for this purpose.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend give special consideration to the hard cases arising in areas which are specially subject to the attention of the flying bombs, where it is therefore impossible for a man to get anybody to look after his business, and where, in many cases, his wife is suffering great disabilities at the present time?

Sir J. Grigg: Special considerations apply to giving leave in the case of people whose premises are suffering damage from the flying bombs.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any argument about compassionate postings which applies to business men applies as a rule also to those who are in domestic difficulties?

Sir J. Grigg: I have that point very much in mind.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend define cases of compassionate leave in order to save the time of Members of this House and of his own Department, as we often do not know the type of case to which compassionate leave is granted?

Sir J. Grigg: I think it was in answer to a Question by an hon. Gentleman that a statement was made on this subject only a week or two ago.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care not to define it, because any definition of his might not be reliable?

Discharged Personnel (Civilian Clothing)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War if the new arrangements for the issue of civilian clothing to discharged soldiers have been completed; and if civilian overcoats will be issued to all soldiers who are discharged, whether in the winter or the summer.

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War when arrangements will be completed to ensure that soldiers on discharge from the Army will receive a civilian overcoat, irrespective of the date of discharge.

Sir J. Grigg: The scheme, which involves a much improved provision of civil clothing for soldiers on discharge, is in an advanced state; the date of its introduction depends on the deliveries of the new outfit and on certain points which are being co-ordinated with the other Services. I would add that the new scheme includes the provision of a raincoat for all soldiers on discharge whatever the time of the year when the discharge takes place.

Mr. Bellenger: Will it be retrospective to those who have been discharged and who have received no cash allowance in lieu of overcoat or raincoat?

Sir J. Grigg: I should like to have notice of that Question, but I do not think so.

Children's Allowance

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if the recent increases in allowances payable in respect of Servicemen's children apply to children living in the care of guardians as well as to children living with their mothers.

Sir J. Grigg: The allowances payable for Servicemen's children in the care of a guardian arc under review.

Mr. Driberg: Is there any reason why they should not be increased comparably, since it costs a guardian just as much to keep the child?

Sir J. Grigg: What more can I say than that they are under review? There are certain discrepancies of practice between the three Services, and I shall take the opportunity of the review to try to bring the practices into line.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a wife from whom

wife's allowance has been withdrawn but who acts as the guardian of her children and receives children's allowance on their behalf is eligible for guardian's allowance in addition.

Sir J. Grigg: In the great majority of such cases the amount payable will be governed by a judicial order by a civil court or by the deputed military officer under Section 145 (2) (b) of the Army Act. Where there is no such order the children's allowance is at present paid normally without addition of the guardian's element; but the question of adding the guardian's element is at present being considered.

Yeomanry and Cavalry Regiments

Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for War why it is proposed to turn certain yeomanry regiments into infantry training regiments; and is he aware of the desire of all ranks to be sent overseas in their present role as reconnaissance units of the R.A.C.

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Lady appears to have been misinformed. There is no proposal to convert any yeomanry regiments to infantry training regiments. In regard to the second part of the Question, any drafts that may have to be taken from yeomanry regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps as reinforcements for forces overseas will go as Royal Armoured Corps reinforcements.

Lady Apsley: Will the regiment, of whose name my right hon. Friend has already been informed, proceed overseas now as a unit?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot possibly answer that question. I think it is at present one of the training and reinforcement units, but what will happen in future I cannot possibly tell.

Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the successes achieved by Red Army cavalry, is consideration being given to rehorsing some light cavalry and yeomanry regiments.

Sir J. Grigg: Not at present, but the question of changing the organisation of the Army in the light of the experience of our own and other armies is one which is under continuous review, having regard particularly to the operations in which the Army is likely to be engaged.

Mr. Petherick: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there are still certain functions that cavalry can perform in modern war perhaps more satisfactorily than any other arm?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not prepared to deny that, as a general proposition, and neither am I prepared to give a categorical assent to it.

Lady Apsley: Has my right hon. Friend studied the progress made by the Red cavalry recently?

War Correspondents, Normandy

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that British women war correspondents accredited to S.H.A.E.F. are not employed on equal terms with Dominion and American women war correspondents, he will immediately remedy this discrimination.

Sir J. Grigg: It is the American and Canadian practice to accredit women, but to place considerable restriction upon the facilities they may claim as such. For reasons already stated in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 1st February we do not give full accreditation to women correspondents. We do, however, allow them, if approved, facilities in the field and for S.H.A.E.F. conferences for accredited correspondents. There is really little difference in the facilities open to British, American and Dominion women correspondents and I understand, moreover, that the present arrangement satisfies the requirements of British editors.

Miss Ward: May I ask whether this satisfies British women war correspondents?

Sir J. Grigg: They are all getting the same facilities, and if they would be better pleased by being called accredited when they are not in fact fully accredited, I will certainly consider it.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the word "accreditation" means?

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the present method of handing out information from highly placed officers at British headquarters in Normandy to the Press and B.B.C. corre-

spondents during the course of operations results in a satisfactory and accurate version being given to the British public; and if he will consider giving facilities to war correspondents to obtain a wider picture of events to be given subject to the requirements of military security.

Sir J. Grigg: A great number of war correspondents are already in France and it is intended that there should be more. As the hon. Member will appreciate, the rate of acceptance depends on proper facilities being available. These facilities are under constant review and as the operation progresses it will be possible to increase the facilities, I hope in accordance with the wishes expressed by the correspondents.

Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that while the American newspapers contain a fair proportion of operational news pictures and reports the British newspapers contain an unfair proportion of posed news pictures, to which the troops themselves object, and official hand-outs; and can he also say whether the Cairo official spokesman has now turned up again in Normandy?

Beer (Price, Normandy)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what price the troops have to pay for beer in the British Liberation Army.

Sir J. Grigg: One shilling and fivepence per reputed quart.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a reputed quart is a measure which is actually a pint and a quarter, and under those circumstances—may I ask him to take this matter seriously—will he have the price of beer reduced to the soldiers serving with the British Liberation Army, in the same way as spirits are reduced in price to officers' messes and sergeants' messes?

Sir J. Grigg: I am sorry to correct the hon. Member; a reputed quart is, I understand, an Imperial pint and one-fifth. One explanation for the disparity is that the beer sent to France is stronger and better in quality than that supplied in this country. Other reasons are that extra costs are thrown on N.A.A.F.I. for transporting the beer and not getting the empties back.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter still further, because there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst the men in France that they have to pay 1s. 5d. for a pint and one-fifth of beer, whatever its strength?

Mr. Turton: Would my right hon. Friend put a specimen of the beer in the Library?

Sir J. Grigg: I should get into trouble with the Revenue authorities for selling beer—[Interruption]—for disposing of beer which was above the standard strength.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to accept the principle that where men are serving long distances away in other theatres such as the Middle East and Japan N.A.A.F.I. charge transport costs on all commodities because of distance and ask the men, or order the men, to pay the cost of transport?

Sir J. Grigg: I certainly think that the principle applies that the object of N.A.A.F.I. is not to make a loss.

Mr. Walkden: It will be making millions of pounds profit this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (ENEMY VANDALISM)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a further list of wanton damage by the Germans to historic buildings and works of art in Italy.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. After hon. Members have perused it they will no doubt agree that there was justification for the warning which is said to have been given by the German authorities to their troops leaving Florence that there must be no looting or rape.

Following is the statement:
Before evacuating San Gimignano, the Germans threatened the inhabitants that they would pay for their sympathy with the Allies. Before the Allied troops had entered, they turned their guns upon the town, which is so rich in architectural treasures that the whole of the little town was constituted a national monument. In so far as this act of vandalism appears to have been prompted by the vengeful spirit of a single formation rather than to have been part of the official

policy of the German Army Command, it is but an example on a major scale of what has become a common feature of the German retreat north of Cassino. In Sicily, where the Germans were still fighting with the Italians as their Allies, and in South Italy, where even after the Italian capitulation they were mainly pre-occupied with getting away, and the extent of Italy's defection was still uncertain, there was little or no plundering or wanton destruction. At Naples it began with the burning of the University library and the destruction of the cache of art treasures and archives near Nola; and from that point outwards the tale is one of sacrilege and theft on all sides. We have the official record of a statue from the altar of Monte Cassino Abbey church being carried off for Goering's benefit. At Gaeta what treasures from the Cathedral had not been sent away were stolen by the Germans, including an ivory crucifix given by Pope Pio Nono; in the Cathedral, as in all the churches of Gaeta, the Monuments and Fine Arts Officer found the floor of the Sacristy strewn with the vestments which the German soldiers had torn from the presses and subsequently discarded after having selected and carried off the best. At Fondi, in San Pietro as in other churches there, the enemy had removed many of the furnishings and had even stripped the monstrance on the High Altar of its silver ornaments; Sta Mai[...] a Collegiate has been looted, San Domenico sacked. At Itri, the Germans had completely sacked the sanctuary of the Madonna della Civita; and a heap of books had been soaked with oil as if in preparation for firing the building. At Cori the stone portal of the convent of Sant' Oliva, built on the site of the temple of Janus and incorporating its remains had been deliberately smashed; the church of San Salvatore had been pillaged. At Priverno they had sacked the church of S. Giovanni. At Velletri the Germans had carried off pictures and the contents of the creasury of Sta. Maria del Trivio; in the Tribunate they had ripped the brocade coverings off the chairs, they had slashed with knives the pictures in the Cathedral and had sacked the seminary attached to it, carrying off instruments, etc. It was noticeable that after the partial pillaging of the Cathedral the German command, as a result of protests by the Bishop, put up "Out of Bounds" notices, threatening the death penalty for entry and plundering by German troops; it is apparently the only instance of its kind, except for the Papal properties at Castel Gandolfo, but it proves that the wholesale plundering is largely due to a breakdown of the discipline of the armed forces.
The Castello Caetani at Sermoneta and the Caetani villa at Ninfa were despoiled of their furnishings. At Formia the choir and sacristy of Sant Grasmo had been sacked by Germans looking for treasure, "which," says the Monuments and Fine Arts Officer, "is usual in all churches seen.
At Frascati the Germans did no looting in the Cathedral (its treasures had been removed to Rome) but they carried off valuable books from the Seminary from the Municipio and from the Villa Ruffinella; it is understood that they proposed to sell them in Rome.


At Baranello and at Isernia the coin collections in the local museums were stolen by the Germans; they are also said to have carried off a silver table service from the Casa d'Amico at Jelsi. They took the entire library of medical books from the Biblioteca Communale at Vasto; in Venafro they forced the doors of the museum and stole the coin collection and a number of small objects.
Their attitude is indeed shown by a notice which one of them scrawled on a wall in the Pretura of Terracina—" whoever comes after us won't find a thing

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN LOSSES (ITALY AND NORMANDY)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Germans that have been killed during the last 30 days by the Allied Forces in Italy and Normandy; how many have been taken prisoner, including generals; the number of tanks destroyed and the number of self-propelled guns.

Sir J. Grigg: In the 30 days up to 26th July over 52,000 prisoners of war have been taken by the Allied Armies in Normandy and Italy. This includes two generals and one admiral captured in Normandy. As regards the number of the enemy killed, I regret that I cannot add to the reply I gave last Tuesday to my hon. Friend. I also regret that at this stage it is impossible to give a firm estimate of the number of tanks and self-propelled guns which have been destroyed.

Sir A. Southby: What proportion of the figures are actual front-line troops and what proportion are labour battalions?

Sir J. Grigg: I certainly could not say without notice, and probably not at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — E.L.A.S. FORCES (GREECE)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether we have a military mission with the E.L.A.S. forces in Greece; and whether he is in possession of any reports as to the resistance offered by these forces.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall): I have been asked to reply. There is an Allied Military Mission with the E.L.A.S. Forces, and reports are received from them about their activities and those of the guerillas. Considerations of security

preclude any detailed statement of guerilla activities being published, though it is almost always possible to release accounts of any notable achievement against the enemy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT POLICY (BOARD OF TRADE)

Sir George Schuster: asked the Prime Minister, with reference to paragraph 30 of the White Paper on Employment Policy, which states that the Board of Trade will be the Department responsible for all questions of industrial policy and will be suitably strengthened for this purpose, whether the President of the Board of Trade has already assumed this responsibility; what steps have been taken for suitably strengthening his Department; and to what extent his responsibility for post-war industrial policy is to be shared for the present with war-time Ministers such as the Minister of Production and the Minister of Supply.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Board of Trade have primary responsibility for general questions of industrial policy affecting the post-war period, but many questions have both war and post-war aspects, and under war conditions the Board must share some of their responsibilities with other Departments under the general supervision of the Cabinet. The staff of the Board of Trade has already been strengthened, and further increases will be made as occasion requires and suitable staff becomes available.

Sir G. Schuster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a very widespread feeling in industrial circles that the Board of Trade, as now organised, is not equal to its present task, and that many opportunities which could be taken without prejudicing the war effort, are being allowed to go by default?

Sir P. Hannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what position, in the creation of these new functions of the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade will occupy?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question down.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the great need there will be of export trade after the war and of a great increase in the tech-


nique of industry in this country, has not the time arrived when the Government should consider a policy in the light of the Debate which took place upon the White Paper, on the disposal of Government assets; and will my right hon. Friend consider setting up something like there is in the United States, namely, a National Resources Board?

Mr. Attlee: That seems to me a rather different question. I do not think the methods used in the United States can be exactly applied in this country.

Mr. Dc la Bère: Has there not been altogether too much interference already?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY-AIR CO-OPERATION, NORMANDY

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that there is successful Army-Air co-operation in the Normandy campaign as far as the British Forces are concerned.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Major Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reassuring answer will give great satisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — JET PROPULSION (ROAD TRANSPORT)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Lord President of the Council whether any scientific research is taking place with a view to the eventual adaptation of the principle of jet-propulsion to road transport, in order to mitigate in some measure our future dependence upon imported oil-fuels.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): Research on the principles of jet propulsion is being carried out under the auspices of the Ministry of Aircraft Production by Messrs. Power Jets Ltd. The possibility of applying this method of propulsion to road transport will be borne in mind and will be fully explored in due course.

Mr. Cocks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no general desire to have vehicles careering about the country with red hot tails?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

New Shipping Construction (Income Tax Allowance)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the 20 per cent. deduction from taxable profits on all expenditure on new plant and machinery, as a contribution for the reconstruction period, will be allowed to shipowners placing orders for new ships as from 25th April, 1944.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The initial allowance referred to by my hon. Friend, which I explained in my Budget speech, is to be given as part of the post-war Income Tax policy which is to be the subject of legislation as soon as the details have been worked out. The date from which expenditure will rank for the allowance is one of the matters still under consideration.

Miss Ward: Is the Chancellor aware how very important it is to the shipping and shipbuilding industries that an early decision on this matter should be taken?

Sir J. Anderson: I made quite clear in my Budget speech the fact that these arrangements would apply to shipping and shipbuilding, and I realise the great importance of the matter in that connection.

Returning Troops (Taxable Articles)

Mr. Eccles: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to ensure that troops returning from abroad are not charged both Customs Duty and Purchase Tax on any articles which they have bought abroad.

Sir J. Anderson: Liability to Purchase Tax on articles imported in passengers' baggage was imposed by this year's Finance Act; but in relation to small quantities brought in by troops I have authorised a concession which I consider should meet the needs of the case.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does that provision apply to the Merchant Navy?

Sir J. Anderson: I will look into that; I am not quite sure.

Company Employees' Insurance (Taxation)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that, when premiums paid by


a company to insure the life of a director or employee have not been treated by the Inland Revenue as admissible deductions, any sum received by the company under the policy will be treated as a capital receipt.

Sir J. Anderson: I am advised that it may be taken as a general rule that if the premiums are not admissible deductions the policy moneys do not constitute trading receipts. For technical reasons, however, it is not possible to give an assurance, as suggested by my hon. Friend, which would cover every type of case.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely in no case does my right hon. Friend think it proper that the Inland Revenue should score both ways?

Sir J. Anderson: I covered that point in my answer. It is not a question of what the Inland Revenue think, or even what the Chancellor thinks. It is a question of what the law provides. I think if my hon. Friend will look at my answer, and if he would then like to have a word with me, I should be able to explain the position to him.

Pensions (Increase) Act

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the increases of pensions provided in the recent Act have not been included in the warrants issued for the months of July, August and September, notwithstanding the printed notification enclosed with earlier warrants that they would be paid; what are the causes of delay; and what are the prospects of payment.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave on 25th July to a similar question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen).

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ESTABLISHMENT)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to reopen the case of the age-barred officers in the Civil Service who, although eligible on other grounds, were denied establishment on grounds of age.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. This is a very old argument, and I am not prepared at this stage to reopen the decision conveyed on several occasions by my predecessors.

Mr. Brown: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that unless this case is reopened, men with anything up to 30 years' service will go out without any pension at the end of their careers?

Sir J. Anderson: I am perfectly aware that there are a number of hard cases, and I am not going to pretend that I think the arrangements in the past have been entirely satisfactory. I hope we may be able, perhaps, to make better arrangements in the future, but to make new arrangements retrospective is quite another matter.

Mr. Brown: In view of the unsatisfactory character of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take an opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Married Women Teachers, Fife

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of the Fife County Education Committee of terminating the engagements of married women teachers at the end of each school session and of offering reappointment at the commencement of the following session; and, as this practice evades the responsibility of making payments during the holiday period, he will take steps to ensure its discontinuance.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The issue as to whether or not payments for the holiday period should be made to this category of teachers is one which might competently be referred by their organisation to the recently reconstituted National Joint Council.

Mr. Mathers: While admitting the validity of that answer, might I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that some local authorities are not very keen to give effect to the findings of that body? Will he use his good offices to see that these findings are accepted by the local authorities?

Mr. Johnston: It is true that occasionally the findings of the National Joint Council have with difficulty been accepted by all local authorities, but, by and large, I think it is the case that local authorities do accept the findings of this Council.

House Building

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has taken any steps to hasten the completion of houses now in progress of building in Glasgow and in Scotland; and the nature of any such steps.

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir; I have taken every step in my power to secure the early completion of houses now being erected in Scotland. We provide plans and specifications to expedite preparation. We receive every week reports of outstanding labour demands by contractors, and these demands we press specially upon the Ministry of Labour.
Arrangements have been made in a limited number of appropriate cases for temporary release of building craftsmen from the N.F.S. and other Civil Defence organisations.
We have also arranged, since the spring of 1943, for every housing site being visited at least once a month by an inspector from the Department of Health, for a report upon progress.

Mr. Buchanan: With all these steps, how can the right hon. Gentleman account for the very small number of houses that have now been built out of the thousands allocated some 12 months ago? How can he account for the terrible delay?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, there is very great delay in building these houses in Scotland, but the Department of Health and the local authorities have done everything possible, with the limited supply of labour available, to expedite the building of these houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Mining Subsidence, Leigh

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has considered a letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Leigh containing a petition signed by 149 householders in Leigh division, drawing attention to the state of the houses they live in, which are becoming uninhabitable

through the damage cause by mining subsidence; and will he have the matter investigated, to see what steps can be taken to prevent these people having to leave their homes.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): From such inquiries as I have been able to make about this case, it would appear that the rights of the various owners of the property concerned are not all the same. My hon. Friend is aware that, under the existing law, rights to support or to compensation for damage by mining subsidence depend on the terms on which the individual owner acquired and holds his property. The whole problem of mining subsidence is under consideration by the various Departments concerned, but an alteration in the law would mean highly complicated and controversial legislation, which cannot be contemplated at the present time.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman use his good offices to try to get the law amended as early as possible, because, not merely in Leigh but in other places, houses are undermined?

Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will do all I can, because I have a natural sympathy with these people.

Statistical Digest (Table)

Mr. Woods: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that Table 26 in the Statistical Digest is derived from returns made by coal distributors from each separate depot from which they operate; that it takes no account of the hundreds of firms who operate from several depots nor of the many units in the coal distributive trade which, while operating under their own names, are under the financial control of larger firms; and, as it gives an erroneous picture of the size of the units engaged in coal distribution and of the tonnage handled by each of the groups in the table, he will take steps either to amend or withdraw it.

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the point raised by my hon. Friend, and regret that any misunderstanding should have arisen. Owing to the necessity for speeding-up the last stages of the publication of the Statistical Digest, in order that hon. Members should have time for study before the recent Debate on the Estimates of my Department, two footnotes were


inadvertently omitted from the table in question. These would have made it clear, first, that a considerable number of small dealers were excluded from the return, and secondly, that, for the purposes of the census in question, merchants operating from more than one depot were required to fill in a return in respect of tonnage handled from each depot. Thus the table, while giving a correct picture of the relative tonnages disposed of by merchants, depot by depot, does not, I agree, give a correct picture of coal disposals by undertakings. I had already taken steps not only to ensure that the table would be amended by the addition of these footnotes in any future issue of the Digest, but also to make this and any other necessary corrections in the next quarterly publication of coal figures in the "Board of Trade Journal," which I hope will be made this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, PENDLEBURY

Mr. Cary: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air, if he has any special statement to make about the British aircraft which crashed at Langley Road, Pendlebury, on Sunday last, and caused 75 civilian casualties and widespread damage to property.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): According to the information available, the aircraft in question crashed when returning from operations. All the crew were killed, and, in addition, 70 civilians were injured; but, fortunately, my reports are that none of the injuries has proved fatal. The cause of the accident is being investigated. I am sure that the House will wish to join with me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of the crew and with those who were injured, to whom we wish a speedy recovery.

Mr. Cary: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his answer, might I ask if he is aware that there are two matters arising out of the Question about which it would be in the public interest to give a general assurance now? The first is in regard to damage to property. Will the War Damage Commission admit full liability, as if the incident had occurred as a result of direct enemy action? Secondly, out of the total num-

ber of casualties 14 persons are detained in hospital, seriously injured. If any person suffers total or partial incapacity, or is injured in any way and deserves compensation, will the Ministry of Pensions deal with the case as though the injury had been sustained as the result of direct enemy attack?

Captain Balfour: As my hon. Friend and the House are aware, as regards damage to land and buildings, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answers in respect of the War Damage Commission, and as regards personal injuries to civilians, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions; I cannot therefore answer the questions.

Mr. Cary: If any argument or element of doubt arises, is there a special tribunal or referee to whom appeal can be made, to get an immediate decision; because, as my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, working people may suffer very great hardship if there is delay in these matters?

Captain Balfour: I appreciate that point, but that is not a matter for the Air Ministry; because as personal injuries can be caused by the instruments of many other Departments it has been decided to centralise such claims in the Departments I mentioned.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question? He has, presumably, listened to the supplementaries which have just been asked. Will he take steps, if he is not in a position to answer now, to see whether the War Damage Commission are responsible; because, from my recollection of the Act, I think that they are liable only for damage from enemy action?

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask the Leader of the House, who has pust heard the questions on the serious casualties, if he will bear in mind that there must be a good deal of public anxiety, and if he will consult with the Minister of Pensions and the appropriate authorities, and, possibly, before we adjourn, make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Petherick: Could I ask my right hon. Friend if he will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to approach the War Damage Commission and point out that this aeroplane was struggling home as the result of enemy action, and, consequently,


it appears that the damage caused was the result of enemy action, even if somewhat indirectly?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I do not think the House should regard this as a unique occasion. There have been accidents of a similar kind. I have had an opportunity of consulting the Minister of Pensions, and my right hon. Friend says that this will fall to be dealt with by his Department.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a plane from Croydon crashed on one of my constituents it was not deemed to be enemy action?

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: On a point of Order. It appears that Questions addressed to the Dominions Office and put down on the Order Paper are never reached on any day. I have put down several Questions on Newfoundland in the last 12 months and they have never yet been reached. Could not some re-arrangement of the present position be made?

Mr. Speaker: That point has not been brought to my notice before, but I will look into it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make on the course of Business for to-day?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. We propose to proceed with the Business as announced on Thursday, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that we do not propose to ask the House to take the Money Resolution in connection with the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: Supposing the Debate on the National Fire Services Regulations (Indemnity) Bill takes a considerable time, will that not prejudice the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill?

Mr. Eden: That point was put to me on Thursday, when I said that I hoped we would make swift progress with the Indemnity Bill and pass on to the Hous-

ing Bill. We do not want to be unreasonable, but we hoped the former Bill might be finished early, and, if it fell out that way, I should like to start making progress with the Housing Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: I should like to enter a caveat. If the House does continue a long Debate on the first Bill, I shall be bound to make a protest against continuing with the second Bill.

Mr. Eden: Let us see how we get on. At this stage of the Session, I should like to make progress with it.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he proposes to take the Motion on Parliamentary Elections (Registration Regulations) to-day, as these may not be so formal as they appear?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I would like to do that.

Mr. Buchanan: Surely, that makes a stronger case than ever for not proceeding with the Housing Bill. These Regulations need some explanation. I ask the House again to look at this housing question seriously. Of all social problems, this is the worst, and I do not think it is a good thing to make housing a secondary issue in this House.

Mr. Eden: I regret the circumstances which have put us in this position, but I certainly do not want to keep the House very late. At the same time, we do want to get on with business. I shall be here myself, and if we make good progress, I think we can get on with the second Order. Regarding the other Order, I was informed that there is not any dispute about it.

Mr. Driberg: Would it not be possible, if this Debate does run for a long time, to take the Adjournment Debate on Friday, and have the Housing Bill on Thursday?

Mr. Eden: Sufficient for the moment——

SAVINGS BONDS (NEW ISSUE)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I have a statement to make to the House regarding Savings Bonds. The total of the current issue of 3 per cent. Savings Bonds 1960–70 now amounts to £966,450,286 OS. 3d. I pro-


pose to discontinue the issue at the close of business on 5th August. As from 8th August, and thereafter until further notice, subscriptions will be invited to a new issue of Savings Bonds. The rate of interest will be 3 per cent., payable half-yearly on 15th February and 15th August. The bonds will be issued at par. They will be repaid at par on 15th August, 1975, at the latest, but the Treasury will have a right to redeem them at par on and after 15th August, 1965, on giving three months' notice. The House will be glad to note that we are again able to extend the period for which we borrow at 3 per cent. and are therefore maintaining the progressive improvement on the terms on which we have raised our loans in this war. I am confident that the new issue will be welcomed and well supported.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to say that the House will be glad, and I am sure that the country will be glad, that we have been able to reverse the policy of the last war, in which the rate of interest went up all the time. In this case we have kept it down, and this issue is at half the rate which was in operation at the close of the last war.

Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask whether the Chancellor does not realise how meanly he is treating lenders in this country, as compared with Russia, where they get double?

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Chancellor whether he will make clear to the public that borrowing a double quantity at half the amount leaves us in just the same mess as before? Three per cent. is far too high.

FLYING BOMB ATTACKS (WARNING SIGNAL)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government have considered the desirability of introducing a special warning in the London area in addition to the "Alert" sounded on the air raid sirens, to indicate the near approach of a flying bomb. Of the various methods examined, the most practicable would appear to be to make audible to a wider public the danger warning signals sounded in factories connected to the Industrial Warning

System. The amount of warning given cannot be more than about 1½if minutes. The warning signal (which will be known as the "danger warning") will be three 2-second blasts on a klaxon or other suitable instrument at intervals of two seconds. The signal to indicate that danger is passed (the "release") will be a continuous blast lasting six seconds. Pending the installation of standard instruments the most suitable instruments at present available will be used. The new system will be brought into operation step by step as quickly as the necessary work can be carried out. Meanwhile, arrangements will be made so that as far as possible all unofficial warning signals for the public already in use are made to conform with the standard warning signals. These unofficial signals will be superseded as soon as the new system of warnings has been brought into operation. The Government have considered whether there should also be a system of visible signals but have come to the conclusion that this is not desirable. No system of visible signals could be devised which would be seen from all parts of the streets, and there would be a serious risk of traffic accidents caused by the diversion of drivers' attention from the road. Existing visible signals will, therefore, be superseded when the new audible system is in operation.
The Government wish to make it clear that the proposed system of danger warnings, although considered the most practicable, is admittedly imperfect and incomplete and subject to certain other limitations. It will, for instance, only be possible to provide danger warnings in areas where there are premises connected to the Industrial Warning System but the system will be extended steadily as circumstances and resources allow. Moreover, there can be no guarantee that the danger warning will always precede the fall of a flying bomb and there will inevitably be many warnings which are not followed by bombs in the vicinity. The Government consider that the system proposed offers better prospects of success than any other but only experience can show how far it will represent an improvement on the present air raid warning system. Factories already have their own internal warning system, and the additional warning for the public which the new system will provide will therefore not affect factories. The public have had long


experience of bombing and now treat the alert as a warning to be on guard, though children, old people and invalids often take refuge in a place of safety and the practice is one to be encouraged. Those engaged on work related to the war effort or the maintenance of the life of the community continue with their occupation until there are further indications of flying bombs in the vicinity and the object of the danger warning is to provide such an indication. Those in the streets in particular should then be prepared to take cover when the bomb is heard approaching and those indoors should move away from the windows. Nevertheless, the fundamental need continues and the work of the nation must be carried on.
My Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport has discussed the arrangements for buses and trams with the London Passenger Transport Board and the Transport and General Workers' Union. Buses and trams will stop to set down passengers who wish to alight and it has been agreed that drivers and conductors will use their discretion whether they will then proceed between a danger warning and the "release." I would add that, as hon. Members will have noticed for themselves, from the point of view of timing, the siren alert has become close to being a warning of imminent danger, and I should like to take this opportunity of referring again to the efficiency with which in my view the officers responsible for operating the warning system have carried out their by no means easy task.

Sir Percy Harris: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear to the public that the old siren system still remains in operation, and that the new system is merely an addition to it for the convenience of the public?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. Certainly the siren system continues and, I hope, will continue to improve.

Mr. Henry Brooke: One of these flying bombs fell last week before the ordinary siren had been sounded. It was not in my constituency. Can the Minister assure us that the strictest care will be taken to minimise the risk of that happening again under this new system of warnings?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I will do my best in that matter. I understand the point of my hon. Friend's question.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can my right hon. Friend say when this new system may begin to operate?

Mr. H. Morrison: I cannot say. It must be on an "as and when" basis—according to the supply of materials, the completion of the work, and so on. I gave instructions that in so far as possible preparations should be made before this statement was made.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the new system of klaxon horns will operate during the hours of darkness as well as in daylight?

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not want to say anything about that. We will use our discretion during the hours of darkness when we hope folks are asleep. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go into detail. He has referred to the klaxon warning. That is what we are aiming at but there are problems of supply and in the meantime we will leave them to use more than one form of warning.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask whether, pending the introduction of the new system, the system of local warnings already introduced in the more progressive parts of Middlesex will be allowed to continue?

Mr. H. Morrison: If the hon. Member is asking me to give him complete absolution and blessings for the enterprise of his local authority, I am afraid I cannot do it.

Major Gates: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to abolish the visual signals, which do no harm and which some people, including the deaf, find very useful, as do also motorists, because it is not always possible to remember at what stage of the alert one has got to?

Mr. H. Morrison: I will certainly consider the point and try to be tolerant. The trouble about the visible system is that it tends to become a snowball affair, with people round about tending to imitate it, possibly without danger. But I should like to encourage the individuality of the British, and I will keep that point in mind.

Captain Duncan: May I ask who will be responsible for sounding the klaxons? Is it to be the responsibility of the A.R.P. service? If it is the factories, is the right


hon. Gentleman going to pay people, or is it going to be done by arrangement with the factories?

Mr. H. Morrison: It will be done by arrangement with the factories.

Mr. Leach: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of a new kind of bomb coming over which is much more silent than the older type?

Mr. H. Morrison: Oh, I have knowledge of a lot of horrible things; but I presume my hon. Friend is referring to those that are now coming over. They vary in their practice somewhat, and there have been cases in which the noise has not been audible.

Mr. Granville: May I ask the Home Secretary, in view of the fact that the great majority of the people in the streets have gone about their ordinary duties, and will continue to do so, whether he will look again at the point that I submitted to him privately that all gates and doors should be open during the alert in order to enable those who desire to "duck" at the last moment to do so?

Mr. H. Morrison: That is the sort of case which ought not to be discussed.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the answer which he gave just now to a supplementary question to the effect that he has knowledge of a lot of horrible things may be misconstrued? I am speaking seriously. Can we understand that it was merely a flippant observation on his part?

Mr. H. Morrison: Well, there are all sorts of possibilities, which have been referred to by the Prime Minister and which are common public knowledge. I was partly flippant, it is true, but anybody doing this job which I have now—which is not a job to run after—is living in a world where one is up against pretty horrible actualities, and it was in that spirit that I spoke.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would be possible to have a notice exhibited either on police boxes or on police stations to show whether there is an alert or an "All clear"? It would help enormously if there were either a light or a sign, to show when the "All clear" was on.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. and gallant Friend must appreciate that we are living in a period of limited man-power, and I honestly do not know where to get the people to do it.

Sir A. Southby: Do it by a light.

PRIVATE BILLS (SCOPE OF SECOND READING DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: I was going to make a statement to the House about the scope of debate on the Second Reading of Private Bills, bearing in mind what happened with regard to Railway Bills the other day, but in view of the time I will circulate the statement. I will only say that if hon. Members will read the statement—there is no urgency about it—I am prepared to receive representations in case I have not interpreted the rule correctly. The statement will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The principle which regulates the scope of debate on a Private Bill is the same as on a Public Bill. On the Second Reading of either class of Bill debate can extend beyond the contents of the Bill, but must remain relevant to its purposes. It may be further extended by a reasoned Amendment. But such Amendment must itself be relevant to the Bill.

In applying this principle to Railway Bills I am guided by two Rulings given by my predecessor in the Chair. On 24th February, 1938, he said:
… I must rule that the hon. Member is not entitled to take advantage of the fact that there is an omnibus Bill of a particular railway company to raise a grievance which applies not to that particular railway company alone, but to all other railway companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1938; Vol. 332, C. 648.]

On 19th February, 1936, when asked how far it would be in Order to discuss important matters connected with a railway company, such as excessive working hours and trade union negotiations, which wore not dealt with by a Bill authorising the construction of railway works, Mr. Speaker made the following answer:
This Bill deals with specific things. It is a Bill to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct works and to acquire lands, and to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works. Those are the only things which hon. Members may discuss."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1936: Vol. 308, C. 1868–72.]

He added that the matters which Members were seeking to raise could be discussed on a General Powers Bill.

I think these Rulings clearly apply the principle I have referred to. It is true that on the occasion of these Rulings no reasoned Amendment was before the House. But I do not think this makes any difference, as a reasoned Amendment should not extend the Debate beyond the limits laid down in these Rulings.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they do not insist on their Amendments to the Education Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, that they agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to certain of their Amendments; to the Amendment made by the Commons in lieu of one of their Amendments; and to the consequential Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill, without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL FIRE SERVICES REGULATIONS (INDEMNITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Pethick - Lawrence: Before the Home Secretary moves the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, I desire to submit a point of Order to you, Mr. Speaker. I think it will be for the advantage of the House if you are good enough to give some indication of what will be in Order in the discussions upon this Bill. This is a very unusual Bill, dealing with a very unusual subject, and many divergent views may be taken of what is or is not in Order. In particular, we have a Schedule embodying all the Regulations, and I think the House would be very glad to have your Ruling as to whether any discussion on the merits of any of these Regulations would be in Order.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. It is not a very easy one to answer, but I think I can give a general outline of the position. It is possible that there might be hard cases which hon. Members would wish to raise—I do not think it is very likely, but it is possible. The question whether the Regulations were valid between the date when they should have been made and the date when they were laid appears to be in Order. There may be suggestions that the validity of future Regulations should be conditional upon these being laid before Parliament and that also, I think, would be in Order. As regards the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Schedule and raising then the merits of the Regulations, that I rule entirely out of Order.

Mr. A. Bevan: When, in fact, were the Regulations validated by the consent of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The proper way of dealing with the Regulations is that they are laid and Members have their appropriate opportunity of putting down a Prayer about them.

Mr. Bevan: Is this present Bill an instrument to validate the Regulations, or will the Regulations, which have not yet been validated, be subject to another process of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The merits of the Regulations have nothing to do with the only operative Clause of the Bill. I have been into this matter very carefully.

Mr. Buchanan: May I submit on your Ruling, Sir, that these Regulations are not individually the subject of discussion but they might be the subject of a group discussion—taking them not individually but as a group—in order to show that in certain respects it would be bad to pass this Bill, because it was not a fair way of proceeding with legislation? I see the difficulty of having an argument on each Regulation, but I think it might be valid to argue that in general the Regulations might not be desirable.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot possibly see how that argument could be put before the House. I think we shall have to wait to see whether anything that is said on that subject is relevant or not.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I draw attention to the fact that the Title of the Bill contains the word "Indemnity" and ask whether it is in Order that a Bill with that Title should contain at the end a Clause with the provision that
all these Regulations shall be deemed to have been duly laid before Parliament.
That would deprive this House of an opportunity of praying against them.

Mr. Speaker: It does not deprive the House of any opportunity at all. The Regulations are laid and hon. Members can pray against them.

Mr. Bowles: When the Committee stage comes to be taken — and the Schedule is taken almost at the end—I suppose a discussion on the individual Regulations will be in Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not put questions to me about what will happen in Committee.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), may I call attention to the fact that the words are:
shall be deemed to have been duly laid before Parliament.
Surely that would be taken as meaning that the proper procedure has been followed out, in which case the time to pray will have elapsed.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not the case that they were all laid last week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Last Wednesday I came before the House to express my deep and sincere regret for the serious error which has occurred through my failure to lay before Parliament a number of Regulations made under the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941. On Thursday I told the House that the Government had decided to introduce a Bill of Indemnity without delay, and that I was clear, on general and constitutional grounds, that this was the proper course to take. To-day I come to the House again to say once more how much I regret this grave oversight and to ask the House to give the Indemnity Bill a Second Reading. First I should explain briefly what actually took place. The Act of 1941 provides that all Regulations made thereunder are to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be, and that within the next 28 Sitting Days after being laid they may be annulled by Resolution.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: What is the meaning of "as soon as may be"?

Mr. Morrison: I understand my hon. and gallant Friend is threatening me with a grammatical Amendment on that point. I am very bad at grammar, and I would sooner leave it to the Attorney-General, who has had a better education than I have had.

Petty-Officer Herbert: The whole point of this thing is "as soon as may be," and I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us what it means.

Mr. Morrison: I have taken a lot of advice about that, and I do not propose to elaborate the point. I will deal with the legal aspect afterwards. I am merely describing what was the provision in the Act. This was that the Regulations were to be laid before Parliament "as soon as may be" and that within the next 28 Sitting Days after being laid they might be annulled by Resolution of either of the Houses of Parliament.
The first Regulations made under the Act—I am merely saying what the Regulations were—were the National Fire Service (General) Regulations, 1941, made on 5th August, 1941. These fundamental Regulations set up the National Fire Service and on them depend the whole constitution of the Service; the duties to be discharged; the constitution of the fire areas; the system of control; the conditions of service; ranks, discipline, etc. Thus they laid the foundations for the new Service. They also transferred all fire brigade personnel to the Service, suspended the obligations and powers of the fire brigade authorities, and transferred, for the purposes of the National Fire Service, for use as though it were the property of the Crown, all the property of the Fire Brigade authorities which was used or appropriated or intended for use for purposes of the fire brigades.
By a defect in machinery, these Regulations were not laid before Parliament until last week, nearly three years after being made. I say by a defect of machinery because I and the officers concerned took it for granted that they would be properly laid. What happened was, I am afraid, that each individual assumed that somebody else would see to this point. This mistake was, unfortunately, repeated with each of 18 amending Regulations made over a period of two years. This mistake was also made in the case of (1) a series of pensions Regulations, amending the original Pensions Regulations made on the 18th August, 1941, which were themselves properly laid; and (2) the National Fire Service (Employment Overseas) Regulations made on 12th June, 1944. The National Fire Service (Financial) Regulations made on 18th August, 1941, were duly laid. There have been no amending Regulations in this case, and, financially, we appear to have been within the appropriate direc-


tions of the Act. The Schedule to the Bill sets out in detail the Regulations which have not been laid.
These errors were recently discovered by an officer of my Department when the question of consolidation arose. The debit side against me and the Department is heavy, but perhaps this discovery by an officer of my Department can be counted on the credit side.

Mr. De laère: Will he get promotion?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot make any wild promises. Immediately the errors were brought to my notice, I called for reports on what had occurred and gave instructions that steps should be taken to prevent any recurrence. These inquiries were completed last Tuesday and I received the Department's final observations on Tuesday evening. I thought it my duty, rightly or wrongly, to bring the matter to the attention of the House as soon as might be. The last thing I wish to do is to minimise, or seek to minimise, the seriousness of the lapse. It was a grave lapse and I and my Department feel very much ashamed of ourselves. We are all feeling very ashamed that this should have happened and I earnestly express my regret to the House. I decided that I ought to inform Parliament at once and, with the Speaker's permission, made a statement in the House on Wednesday.
I do not wish in any way to minimise the seriousness of this lapse. It is a most serious matter that, whatever the reason, any Minister exercising powers of subordinate legislation should fail to comply with an express provision in a Statute that the particular piece of subordinate legislation should be laid before Parliament. I would only say three things by way of explanation—not by way of extenuation, not by way of defiance or even of defence, but merely of explanation. The first is that the errors were due to inadvertence and nothing worse. I know the men in this Department and I know myself, and none of us would willingly do any such thing. There has been nothing hole-in-the-corner about the National Fire Service. I think everybody has known of its existence right from the beginning. We had nothing to hide—yes, my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H.

Williams) has been a good friend of the Service—and I have never hesitated to proclaim to the world the achievements of this splendid service.
There was a considerable Debate on the Bill under which the Regulations were made. That was a big piece of publicity after the actual publication of the Bill. The National Fire Service itself was introduced to the world with full publicity. The contents of the Regulations were known and studied by the Fire Service, including the officers and the Fire Brigades Union and by the local authorities. The Associations concerned were consulted, and if at any time they wished to raise any point of criticism or suggest alterations, it is always possible for appropriate bodies to approach the Home Office or the Ministry of Home Security and raise points on the merits or the contents of Regulations.
On 18th November, 1941—in the Debate on the Address—there was a full discussion of the National Fire Service in the House. In what I am now about to say, I beg the House not to think that I am trying to score points against it. Believe me, I am in no position to score points against anybody. I hope it will not be long before I can do so, but all I am doing now is to establish that the Regulations were in fact known. It is clear from the OFFICIAL REPORT that there was full awareness of the existence of the Regulations to which direct references were made by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who referred, among other things, to the discipline code, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who said that quite rightly a code of discipline had been laid down, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas), who also referred to the discipline code.
I only say this to establish the point that there was no secret about the existence of the Regulations and I am not trying to pass the responsibility for the non-discovery on to the House at all. As a fact, it is the case that no Member of the Legislature in either House ever sought to put down a Prayer. I am not asking for trouble—no Minister looks for Prayers against his Regulations—but I am beginning to wish that somebody had put down a Prayer against the Regulations, in which case, believe me, those Regulations would have been here with a speed of


which the National Fire Service when engaged on operations would not be ashamed.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is my right hon. Friend implying that the Bill should offer an indemnity to this House?

Mr. Morrison: No, indeed, I am entirely responsible.

Sir H. Williams: A Prayer cannot be tabled without disclosing the date on which the Regulation was laid on the Table of the House.

Mr. Morrison: I merely make this point—I do not want to press it at all—but if it had happened that hon. Members had sought to put down a Prayer then either they or the authorities of the House, or I, would have discovered the error.

Mr. A. Bevan: Some of us suggested setting up a "watchdog" Committee 2½ years ago. Had this Committee been set up the right hon. Gentleman's error would have been discovered.

Mr. Morrison: That is a perfectly legitimate point against me, because I then protested against the setting up of a "watchdog" Committee, but that would not have solved the matter. The Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders only deals with Regulations which have been laid. There it is. I mention these things not to make debating points against anybody, but merely to establish that the Regulations were known. Therefore, far from there being any secret about the existence of this Service—the product of Regulations under the Act—there was the greatest publicity both inside and outside Parliament. There was a further debate in which the National Fire Service was discussed on the 30th July, 1943, and there have, of course, been many Questions relating to subjects dealt with in the Regulations.
My second argument, not by way of extenuation, but by way of explanation as to how I and the Department slipped up, is that the making of these Regulations was the culmination of a great administrative task. It really was an extraordinarily vast administrative revolution in the fire-fighting arrangements of the country. It involved the reorganisation of the whole fire-fighting organisation of England, Wales and Scotland. That

reorganisation took place in the light of the experience of the blitz and let me say—because these things are liable to be forgotten when what was expected does not happen—in anticipation that the winter of 1941–42 would see heavier enemy attacks than the winter of 1940–41. It is true that these anticipations did not materialise for the time being, but it was no part of my business to assume this. I must always assume the worst, and the reorganisation had to be carried through urgently under the ever-present threat of the renewal and intensification of the attacks. It was a formidable task of vast administrative complexity, involving the changeover from administration by 1,400 local authorities in England and Wales alone, apart from the 200 in Scotland, and concentrating them in a unified national system under a limited number of fire force areas, and the manning and equipping of the new National Fire Service, the selection of the officers and the setting up of the financial and supply organisation. That is the background against which the original mistakes must be judged.
I would add this. It has happened to me in Debate, and it may have happened to other Members, that one is so seized by a first-class point that subsidiary or secondary points which are almost of equal importance are overlooked. There are times when you are working under stress, when you are wholly possessed by a single objective—in my case the fighting of the battle of the flames—when you are apt to forget other points. I ask for some sympathy for the Department in the circumstances because our whole mind was directed to giving effect to our determination that our country should not burn as the result of enemy action. The responsibility is mine, fairly mine, and I accept it in the hearing and in the sight of Parliament. As far as my own Department is concerned, steps have been taken to prevent the mistake occurring again. I do not think that it is likely to happen again. The officers concerned have had a rough time from me, and everything humanly possible will be done to prevent a recurrence.
I have not had an easy time from Parliament. I make no complaint. One ought not to have too easy a time from Parliament in such circumstances. There were quite properly Questions, and I ex-


pected them and deserved them in view of the grave error which had been made. I say that I am exceedingly sorry about it, and I only ask the House to recall the stress under which we were working and that when it occurred our minds were directed to the vast task we had in hand. I should like to add that although I have dealt suitably with the officers of my Department have had to give my own explanation to the House, I am bound to say in fairness to these men that they have done a first-class job in the organisation of the Fire Service, and if I had again to choose officers with whom I would go through the Battle of the Flames, I would choose these vigorous men again despite their responsibility for making this bad mistake, at a time when their energies were concentrated on organising the N.F.S. for victory against the enemy's fire-raising attacks.

Mr. De la Bère: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Parliament has been very considerate to him?

Mr. Morrison: I hope that there is not the slightest feeling that I am suggesting that Parliament is anything but considerate and I hone that I in my turn am as respectful to the House as I always wish to be. I will now deal with the terms of the Bill itself. It provides, in short, that the Regulations shall be deemed to have been duly laid before Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the Statute. I do not propose to argue the question whether the Regulations have been invalidated by the error. Only the courts can settle that issue authoritatively. In any case, it would be unprofitable for me to pursue it. Whether the Regulations are valid or not, I am satisfied that it is right to have this Bill so that Parliament can have the opportunity of reviewing the matter on a Parliamentary Bill. Whatever the legal position may be, there will be no doubt about the matter if the Bill is passed.
Some hon. Members may ask: "But what of the injustice suffered by persons who had, for example, been proceeded against under the Regulations?" With all respect to them, this argument seems to me to be entirely misconceived. Assuming for a moment that the premise on which it is based—that the Regulations are invalid—can be accepted, and

that is only an assumption, what does it lead to in practice? Hon. Members would presumably not suggest that the National Fire Service should not have been set up at all or that if this important formality had not been neglected, Parliament would have annulled the Regulations setting it up. There would, in short, have been an N.F.S. in any case and an N.F.S. on the same model, with the same powers as to-day. Nobody would suggest that it should have no discipline code. In other words, no one can seriously suggest that if the mistake had not occurred things would not have taken exactly the same course as in fact they have taken. And I cannot see, therefore, how on merits—important technicalities aside—injustice can be said to have been done, grave and serious as the failure to lay the Regulations was.
What of the future? The House will, I hope, accept the explanation I have given of how this mistake came to be made and give the Bill a Second Reading. But Members may reasonably ask what the Government propose to do about the future.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman has asked for indemnification. A large number of chief fire officers, and others, no doubt, have carried out disciplinary action on the Regulations, and why are they not being indemnified as well?

Mr. Morrison: Whatever action they may have taken is due solely to my failure to lay the Regulations before Parliament, and if Parliament now enacts that they were deemed to have been laid then both my own and these officers' actions would be validated and there would be no question of it otherwise.

Mr. Buchanan: The Home Secretary might be good enough to explain the action against his officers. Has there been any departmental action taken against any officer in this connection? The right hon. Gentleman has asked Parliament to take no disciplinary action against himself—the chief culprit—and I want him to tell the House if any action has been taken against any officer. Why should not an officer be completely indemnified from any disciplinary action as well as himself?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter between myself and officers of my Department.

Mr. Buchanan: No.

Mr. Morrison: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; it is. Parliament cannot control directly the Civil Service.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and says, "I want to be completely indemnified and no action to be taken against me," and it is only fair for Parliament to say that, if the chief culprit is exempt, then, no person in his office should suffer or have disciplinary action taken against him, and it is proper to ask for such an assurance.

Mr. Morrison: I have given the assurance. I have told the House that I have dealt with them sharply and critically, but I have also said that these are very good officers who have done a first-class job of work in the organisation of the National Fire Service. There is only one thing that the House can do about officers and that is to hold the Minister responsible. If the House tried to deal direct with the discipline and promotion of civil servants we should get into difficulties.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman missing the point of the hon. Member? The point raised is that officers of his Department would have taken action against persons under the Regulations which were not valid. As I understand it, the correct answer is that the indemnification which the right hon. Gentleman receives from the House of Commons will, at the same time, be indemnification for any action which may have been taken under the Regulations which were not validated.

Mr. Morrison: I follow the hon. Member's point but I think it was a different point from that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Buchanan: Mine is a completely different point. It is an important point. It is clear from the terms of the Bill that the point of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is met. I am asking that no person who happens to be a humble servant should be penalised. We are indemnifying the Home Secretary and no person in the Civil Service ought to suffer because of the action that has been taken.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is anxious that none of the civil servants responsible to me for the laying of these Orders shall be disciplined. He wants to

know whether I am proposing to demote any officers of the Department who were responsible in this matter. I am not proposing to do so.

Mr. Buchanan: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, it is clear under the terms of the Bill that in so far as the Bill provides that the Orders are deemed to have been laid the action of any officer as well as that of myself is made regular.

Mr. Goldie: I have had some experience of these matters. In cases of false imprisonment for malicious prosecution, action invariably is brought against the individual police officer concerned. What I want an assurance upon in this matter is this. Assume that an action is brought, not against the responsible person in the Home Office for the unfortunate mistake that was made, but against the official who, in the course of his duty, has arrested a man, and against whom an action for false imprisonment is brought. Is he protected or not?

Mr. Morrison: My advice is that if the Bill is passed as submitted to the House, no action can lie against anybody, whether he is an officer of the Department or of the National Fire Service or of the police force. No action can be brought against anybody and that is the purpose of the Bill. As I said, I hope that the House will accept the explanations I have given of how the mistake came to be made and give the Bill a Second Reading. But hon. Members may reasonably ask, as I have said, what action the Government propose to take in the future. In the Home Office and the Ministry of Home Security we have made arrangements which will secure a double check against any such error occurring again. With the detail of these arrangements I need not bother the House, but there will be a double check. But we intend to go further, and it is proposed that the Treasury, whom we shall consult, shall consider what instructions can appropriately be issued to all Government Departments on this subject. The first step is to make the arrangements throughout the Government service as foolproof as we possibly can.
There lies on every Minister a heavy responsibility to secure meticulous observance of a mandatory duty imposed on


him by Act of Parliament. When Parliament has enacted that Regulations shall be laid, failure to comply with that enactment is a grave offence by the Minister responsible. Every Department of the Government will be anxious to examine its Departmental arrangements with a view to ensuring that the Minister shall not be exposed to such risk by any fault in the official machinery.
There remains, however, a further consideration—and it arises on the notice of Motion on the Order Paper about a new Clause. Ought Parliament to take further steps to ensure that Regulations which are subject to a negative Resolution—the point obviously cannot arise under the affirmative Resolution procedure—shall not operate indefinitely if there should be failure to lay? I have told the House on previous occasions that the Government appreciate the importance of meticulous care to preserve the necessary Parliamentary control over delegated legislation. The Government fully recognise the feeling of many Members that Parliament ought to set it beyond doubt by some appropriate enactment that Regulations which are subject to a negative Resolution shall cease to be operative if they are not laid within a specified period. This question deserves careful consideration and we shall be glad to have the views of the House about it in the speeches which will follow. It is not altogether a simple matter.
It must be remembered that while a number of Defence Regulations and Orders are restrictive or impose duties upon somebody or may be called onerous in character, there are many others which have a beneficial purpose from the point of view of the individual. They may confer rights, they may improve pensions, or they may secure the payment of allowances. Therefore, the proposal of legislation cuts both ways and that should be kept in mind. To invalidate Regulations where advantages to the individual citizen are granted by the State or by public authority may be the last thing that any Member may desire, and it is arguable that, while appropriate punishment ought to fall on the responsible Minister, punishment ought not to fall on persons who are beneficially affected by such Regulations. Nevertheless, there is also force in the contention that if Parliament, when passing the

enabling Act, decreed that regulations made thereunder shall be subject to a negative Resolution, it is not right that they should operate for a long and indefinite period, despite the fact that Parliament had had no opportunity to consider such a Resolution. The question whether this object should be effected by some new statutory provision cannot, I am advised, and I gather, Sir, that that is your view, be dealt with in this Bill. The Government, however, recognise that it requires attention and they will give it early consideration, in the light of to-day's Debate.
Finally, in asking for the Second Reading of the Bill, I thank the House for the great kindness with which it has received what I have said and, once more, I express to this House, for which I have the very highest regard, my deepest regrets and apologies that this serious error should have taken place. Having done so, I trust the House will give me the Bill as early as may be.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am very glad, and I am sure the House equally is glad, that the Government decided that this irregularity could only be rectified by the introduction and passage through Parliament of an Indemnity Bill. The Bill we have before us, I feel, does achieve the purpose which the House, as well as the Government, have in view. The Home Secretary has quite frankly admitted the error of himself and the Department, for which he is responsible, in this matter, because, quite clearly, the crime and whole responsibility for this failure rests with his Department. The fact that this House had not, itself, observed the irregularity, or that the persons affected by these Regulations had not thought it desirable to urge Members of the House to pray against them, does not relieve the Home Secretary or his Department of their responsibility, and the Home Secretary, of course, did not suggest that for a moment, because two blacks, or rather a black and a little grey between them, do not make a white.
With regard to the precise reference of this Bill, the operative Clause—Clause I—consists of two parts. The first part indemnifies the Home Secretary, but really the second part of Clause I is the more important. I should like to put my interpretation of that, which I think the Law Officers of the Crown will support.


I have heard it suggested that the second part of Clause I validates the Regulations. That is not, of course, the case as I understand it. The Statute says that these Regulations must be laid upon the Table of the House as early as may be, and that thereafter there shall be a certain lapse of time, in which the House can annul them. But they remain in. force during the period between their laying and the acceptance by the House, either by not praying against them, or by the Prayer being produced and defeated. What this Bill does, as I understand it, is not in any way to deny the force of the phrase "as soon as may be"——

Petty-Officer Herbert: Petty-Officer Herbert rose——

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am quite ready to give way, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me finish my sentence, which I am afraid will be rather a long one. I shall certainly give way to him if I have not satisfied him when I come to the end. I was endeavouring to say that what I understand this Bill to do is—for the purpose of these particular Regulations and not for any others—to extend the period covered by the words "as soon as may be." In other words, it appears that, in this particular case only, those words shall be deemed to cover the whole period between the time when these Regulations ought to have been laid and the date when they were laid, which I think was a few days ago. It does not deprive the House of the right to discuss and to pray against these Regulations; it does not say that in any other case the period shall be other than we all took it to be, which is practically immediately—within a few hours or days. However, so far as these particular Regulations are concerned, it allows the lapse of time which has taken place not to invalidate them. Now, if I have not satisfied my hon. and gallant Friend——

Petty-Officer Herbert: I did not want to interrupt the most interesting discourse of my right hon. Friend. I was hoping he might be able to do what the Home Secretary has been unable to do, and say what is meant by "as soon as may be." Is it as soon as may be convenient, or desirable, or possible, or what? It is a point because, after all, unless we know what is meant by the phrase, it may be that this Bill is wholly undesirable or unnecessary.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It would be very presumptuous on my part to interpret the meaning of words which the Home Secretary has feared to pronounce upon. Possibly my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General may do so when he comes to reply. However, speaking as an ordinary person, I would say that we all know, I think, that the intention of these words was, "at a very early date after the framing of the Regulations."
The merit of the Government in introducing this Bill is that they do not attempt by any subterfuge to deprive the House of that interpretation of the words. When I first raised the matter last week with my right hon. Friend, I gathered that there was some doubt in the mind of the Home Office whether any act of indemnity was, in fact, required, and if that had been raised, then the point made by the hon. and gallant Member as to whether the words "as soon as may be" could be twisted into covering a period of 2½ years would, I think, have been highly relevant. I think the House would then have been quite right in feeling indignant that any such twisted meaning should have been put upon any words of common usage. However the Government have, rightly, decided that that would be an unsound view. Though they do not presume to say what the courts would have decided, had a case been brought forward, they accept the interpretation which the common man—meaning my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert)—would put upon those words. I hope the Attorney-General will agree that I have interpreted the meaning of the words correctly.
I am sure that the House acquits the Home Secretary of any intentional and deliberate effort to deprive the House of the opportunity of debating the matter. Of course that would have been quite ridiculous, because, as he has said to-day, the existence of these Regulations was common knowledge, not only to us but to the people who were affected by them, and it would be absurd to suggest that there was any intention of suppression. What the House wants to be satisfied about is that this kind of thing shall not happen again. The Home Secretary has, I imagine, ascertained that all the Regulations in the Home Office and the Ministry of Home Security have been put out. I presume he has combed


out these Departments and made certain that there are no Regulations other than those specified in this Bill, which have not been properly laid before the House. I think it is fair to ask the Attorney-General whether the Regulations put forward by other Departments of the Government have, equally, been gone through meticulously, to make sure that in their case also there are no cases of failure to table Regulations. I imagine that as soon as the matter was brought to the attention of the House by the necessity of introducing this Bill, they put their own house in order, but I think it would be just as well if we had a positive assurance to that effect from the Attorney-General. If he should not be able to give that assurance when he comes to reply, then he should, at least, give the assurance that forthwith all the Ministries will be instructed to go through their papers to make sure.

Sir Irving Albery: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister refused to give that assurance?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sorry, I had forgotten that statement, but if that is so, perhaps the Attorney-General will refer us to the time and place when that statement was made.
Now with regard to future Regulations, it is very important that the House should not forgo the right to insist that every precaution is taken that this does not happen again, and I noted the particular method of assurance suggested by the Home Secretary at the conclusion of his speech. He said he would give sympathetic consideration to that point, and it seems to me that the House very reasonably accepted that view. The passage of this Bill, so far from reducing the responsibility of he Governmen, makes it much more clear that the responsibility of the Department is to see that this thing does not happen again and, so far as the future is concerned, that seems to me to carry us pretty well all the way.
I would only like to say, in conclusion, that Mr. Speaker has ruled—and if I may say so, I accept the Ruling as essentially correct—that we cannot, on this Bill, discuss the precise merits of the Regulations. The House will have the opportunity to do that, if it chooses to pray against any

or all of them, and the time to consider the merits of these Regulations will be then. But, of course, the whole of this irregularity and the introduction of this Bill has thrown a spotlight on these Regulations, and I do not think I shall be out of Order if I say this to the Home Secretary: Many of these Regulations are 2½ years old, and it may well be that in the lapse of time since they were originally drafted points have arisen on which he might, after consideration, see fit to amend them. Of course they have been laid in their original form.
Therefore, when that period elapses they will pass in their original form, but I feel sure that if suitable representations are made from suitable quarters, to the Home Secretary, he will give the question of such emendation his careful consideration. That is all I want to say to-day. I hope my view will find reflection in other quarters of the House, that although we take an exceedingly serious view of this lapse on the part of the Home Office we shall, nevertheless, give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. Goldie: On the last occasion on which I had the honour to address this House the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), in a friendly way, admonished me for over simplifying matters. Notwithstanding that friendly criticism, I propose to follow the same course to-day, because, with the greatest respect, there may be some confusion of thought. I am sure that every Member feels sincere sympathy with the Home Secretary in the position in which he finds himself to-day, coupled with admiration for the fair and proper way in which he has told the House exactly what happened. I do not believe there is a Member in this House who, in his own professional or business life, has not had a mistake made by a subordinate. Everyone has experienced it, and there is not one who would not do what the right hon. Gentleman has done, namely, take the full burden of responsibility.
In approaching this matter I intend to be brief, because I know that the Government are anxious to get the Bill at the earliest moment. There are two separate matters to be considered by the House. First, is this Bill of indemnity necessary and, second, what are the circumstances which led to its necessity? The more important question is—and I


interrupted the Home Secretary in his speech on this point—are we satisfied that no real wrong has been done, or will be done, to any individual for whose liberties we are responsible? In normal times the court is the guardian of the liberty of the subject but at the present moment we have that responsibility in a special sense, and our duty is to see that no wrong is inflicted on any citizen by this emergency legislation.
In asking myself whether this Bill of indemnity is necessary I can see that from a legal point of view a case might be presented that no such Bill was necessary. But will the House take its mind back to 1939, to those days in early September, when some of us sat here rushing through legislation as quickly as we could? I think that the explanation of what happened is this: If one looks at the original Defence of the Realm Regulations it will be found that it is under the Act of 1939 that the Fire Service Regulations were originally made. The extraordinary feature about the matter is this: If hon. Members look at the volume published as far back as 1942, in which there is a Section dealing with tables of Acts of Parliament amended, suspended or applied by Defence Regulations and Orders made thereunder, they will find that in the Schedule the Act of 1941 is expressly included. So until the blitz of 1940–41 began, was the matter governed entirely by the main Act of 1939. One can see what happened, that whereas in 1939–40 things went normally, when things became abnormal, and it became necessary not merely to extend but co-ordinate the whole of the Fire Service Regulations, officials of the Home Office assumed that the Regulations they were making were covered in the same way as the earlier Regulations were covered. I think the mistake has arisen in this case—although others may differ—simply because of the English in which these Regulations were drawn, a point about which some of us have protested so often. Look at the Bill we are discussing now. It states:
And whereas it is provided by the said Act that all Regulations made thereunder shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made. …
I turn to the Act of 1941. Reading it, line by line, and comma by comma, I find no such provision at all, until I turn to Clause 2 (I), where I find this is the language in which it is drawn:

Paragraph (d) of Subsection (2) and Subsection (4) of Section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, as amended by Subsection (2) of Section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1940 (which relate to the amendment of Acts by Defence Regulations) shall have effect as if this Act had been passed before the commencement of the last-mentioned Act, and Subsection (I) and (2) of Section eight of the first mentioned Act"—
I pause for breath—
(which relate to the laying before Parliament of Defence Regulations and the annulment of Defence Regulations) shall apply in relation to regulations under this Act as they apply to relation to Orders in Council containing Defence Regulations.
Can one wonder why a subordinate official at the Home Office went wrong when he had to deal with that? Speaking for myself, I can only feel the deepest sympathy for the Home Secretary and his officials.
Now we come to the more important point. Has anybody really suffered? The thought is too awful that this might have happened in connection with Regulation 18B. What would have happened to the Home Secretary then? Here is what has happened. Any person who has been subjected to disciplinary action, to judge by certain proceedings at a police court, which are sub judice, and on which I cannot comment, has, at any rate, had the advantage of a perfectly fair judicial trial. That is to say, he has been prosecuted for an offence before a tribunal which has had every reason to think that the offence with which he was charged was a valid offence. The matter could go before quarter sessions on appeal or, if tried at the assizes, could go before a central criminal court. The main point is that he is in exactly the same position as he would have been if these particular Regulations had been laid for 28 days. Now let us see what happens in a case of a civil action. In that case a different question arises altogether, but I will not develop that because there will be future litigation, and if that man has had a fair trial in respect of an offence which, in fact, was an offence from every point of view except the technical point of view of the Regulations not being laid, I should hesitate to advise litigation in those circumstances.
I am sorry I have had to seek the indulgence of the House so early in the Debate, because I have not had the opportunity of hearing anybody who wished to criticise the right hon. Gentle-


man the Home Secretary. I was rather looking forward to some legalistic cardinal talking to the right hon. Gentleman on the lines of "The Jackdaw of Rheims," remembering how:
The Cardinal rose, with dignified look, He called for his candle, his bell and his book.
The concluding lines of that immortal poem are:
Never was heard such a terrible curse, But what gave rise to no little surprise Nobody seemed one penny the worse.
So far as laying aside all legal penalties and facing the matter from a common sense point of view and realising a serious mistake has been made—which should not be made again—I say that the liberty of the subject is not involved, as I was afraid it was at first, and that the least we can do to-day, as a mark of admiration, appreciation, and affection for the Home Secretary, is to grant him the Bill for which he has asked.

Mr. Pritt: I hope the House will acquit me of any discourtesy in not having been here earlier, and of not remaining for long after I have spoken, but I have duties elsewhere from which I cannot very well escape. I do not intend to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) in saying whether anybody has suffered as a result of these proceedings because I hope there will be friendly discussions between the Home Secretary and the union with which I am not directly concerned. I want to suggest for the consideration of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General two points which are worrying me a little about the latter part of Clause i of the Bill, which says:
… those regulations shall be deemed to have been duly laid before Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the statute under which they were made.
It is clearly the intention and desire of the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else that some 28 days from 26th July shall be available for anybody to put down a Prayer if he wishes. It is my view, as a matter of construction, that if the words I have just quoted are left in the Bill then, "duly laid," must mean as soon as may be and that any attempt to put down a Prayer will, in my view, be out of Order, and against the Statute, because the Regulations will be deemed to

have been duly laid, which must mean deemed to be duly laid, promptly, as soon as may be. If that Clause should stand it will, as a matter of law, be impossible to put down a Prayer. I therefore ask that the matter should be considered. Another matter which is a little narrower, is this: One has to consider the possibility—and I am sure the Home Secretary ought to consider it—that within 28 days, assuming we get this Bill, which is our desire, one of these Regulations may be annulled. If one is bad enough to be annulled it ought not to have any more validity that it would have if this mistake had not been made, and the Regulations had been laid before Parliament.
In other words, if one of these earlier Regulations is annulled on some date in October, 1944, it will have had three years' run for its money—for its false money, so to speak. It ought not really to have that. It seems to me as a matter of fairness that if one of these Regulations was annulled, it ought not to have more than the run it would ordinarily have had, which I suppose would take about three months. If a Regulation is made on any particular day, a Prayer has to come on within 28 working days. It may take three months to get 28 working days. It will certainly take two. Any Regulation laid before Parliament, say within 10 days, would then have two months' or so to run before the 28 days ran out. Any one of these Regulations which is going to be annulled, ought not in my submission to have more than three months' run. This has already had over two years, perhaps nearly three. If anything is annulled, there ought to be a provision that it should not get, so to speak, this adventitious existence which it has never deserved. It can easily be done.

Mr. Morrison: It is our intention that the House shall have full rights over this. I am not sure what my hon. and learned Friend is arguing. Does he mean that, if the House were to annul one Regulation, it should be retrospectively annulled back to about three months after the date on which they were originally made?

Mr. Pritt: Yes.

Mr. Morrison: That would present me with a legal tangle. I should want to know everything that had been done under the Regulation for those three years.

Mr. Pritt: We must not assume that the House will not annul one, because there have been grievances about them on the assumption that they are valid. But my right hon. Friend has described exactly what I mean. It will be a nice collection of legal tangles. I do not want to present him with legal tangles. I am anxious for the clearing up of mistakes, but we should not give one of these Regulations a good many years of life, when it ought never to have had any at all.

Sir Herbert Williams: Like everyone else, I want this Bill to become law, because, obviously, it is a case where no one has suffered because of a constitutional outrage, for that is what this has been. There has been no objection to any of the Regulations and one cannot contend that there has been any hardship. What I am concerned about is to see that this does not happen again. I think we want something more than the Home Secretary has indicated, as far as routine machinery is concerned. At the moment, every Minister acts as his own policeman in this matter. The House has failed. Parliament has imposed a mandatory instruction on nearly all Ministries to do a certain thing, and we have no organisation to see that they do it. I think it is our duty to set up our own machinery to see that we receive all the documents.
I understand that the technical process of laying a paper on the Table is the delivery by an official of a Government Department of one of these documents to an official in the Journal Office. Next morning, when we get our Votes and Proceedings, we find a list of the documents so laid. It is this document which comes before the new Select Committee which has been set up. They have no means of finding out these things, unless they are recorded as having been laid. The private group of which I am the chairman never look at things that do not come to us from the Vote Office. That is our source of information. We ought to make some inquiry about this.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) drew attention to the fact that this Act of 1941, instead of having in its own words about laying, incorporated the words of the Emergency Powers Act. That would put people off. They would not see the mandatory instructions in looking at their own

Act. You can always get a copy of the Statutory Rules and Orders at the Vote Office or in the Library. Inquiry should be made as to whether these things went to the Vote Office and to the Library but did not go into the Journal Office. It is delivery to the Journal Office which, in fact, means laying. The Stationery Office are the people who supply the Statutory Rules and Orders to the Vote Office, and I think it is the Stationery Office which sends the documents to the Library. They distribute them and sell them. Anyone can buy them. They are open to the public. But it is not the Stationery Office which lays them on the Table of the House. We ought, as I say, to look into this machinery of distribution.

Mr. Molson: What, I understand, happens is that there is a liaison officer in each Department responsible for sending the documents to the House to be laid before them.

Sir H. Williams: I understand that the Parliamentary or legal department in the Ministry has the task of seeing that any document that is to be laid is transmitted to the Office in Westminster Hall, which receives these documents, and is technically the Table of the House. We are notified of any documents so delivered when we get our Votes and Proceedings. The Stationery Office is the body which distributes documents to individual Members and puts them into the sale office of the Stationery Office in Kingsway. They are effectively distributed by the printing organisation and not by the legal organisations of the Departments. All these Rules and Orders are numbered serially and you get some idea about the position, but not clearly. No. 800 may be delivered before No. 750, because there are fewer delays in printing it. Some are numbered and never printed at all. They are the local Orders which affect only some local interest. They do not come to our Library but are made public amongst those interested. So that though the number may run to a couple of thousand in a Session only a thousand are printed. If the body that numbers them had put on it the duty of informing the Journal Office that "Number so and so" had been issued, it should be the duty of our Journal Office to say, "Where is this?" If a certain number of days had passed and this thing of which they had been notified was not


received, we should be performing the duty that we have imposed on Ministers, of making sure. I throw that out as a working suggestion, to ensure that the House does its part.
I am glad that the Home Secretary said what he did about our Amendment. That was our attempt, rather hurriedly, before the House rose last week to put something on the Paper which would put this thing right constitutionally. We shall never find out whether these things have been valid for the last 2½ years. The period "as soon as may be" obviously is a short period—the time taken to print off and deliver it here—and, as soon as that unknown period lapses, many people would argue that, as the Papers have not been laid, the Orders have lost their validity. I think I could make a very strong case for that. If I had the high honour of being a judge, I would not send anyone to gaol if the documents had not been laid according to Statute. But let us make it clear. The Home Secretary was doubtful about the purport of this Clause. He said some of the Regulations confer advantages. What difference does that make? They can only confer advantages by taking money out of the public till and handing it out to someone. The fact that it confers an advantage or inflicts a penalty make no difference. The Home Secretary must not repeat that argument.
When we tabled our Amendment we thought it was not likely to be called because it seems to go outside the Title of the Bill but we wanted to stake out a claim. Now we have introduced this wartime procedure of being allowed to table Amendments before the Bill has been read a Second time—the grėatest minor improvement in Parliamentary procedure for many years. It tells everyone what are the things to worry about in the Bill and we have seized that opportunity. This incident has revealed a gap in our Constitution. The illness of King George V in 1928 revealed a gap in the Constitution in demanding provision for a Regency. If he had not been able to sign the necessary document four hours before he went into a coma we should have been constitutionally in a difficulty. Here we have suddenly discovered another constitutional danger. There is yet another which we shall have to rectify at some time or another—the monstrosity of dissolving

Parliament instead of summoning a new Parliament, which is the proper thing to do. If Parliament were dissolved to-day, we should be out of effective existence for nine weeks in existing circumstances. That is a monstrosity which I have been urging Ministers for years to correct.
I think there ought to be some inquiry whether there are any other constitutional gaps that ought to be filled. I hope the Home Secretary's statement means that we are going to fill this gap, but there may be others, and it is worth while that these matters should be looked into. I think the Home Secretary has earned forgiveness in connection with this matter by his complete frankness and humbleness, which is not usually a characteristic of his. He saw the red light and it would not turn green. He bowed to it and all was well. I hope some attention will be given to the points that I have raised.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have listened to all that has been said in this Debate, and I am troubled about the necessity for this Bill. We really have not been told of the necessity for any Bill of Indemnity. The hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) assumed that because the Regulations had not been laid on the Table they were invalid. I must admit that I do not feel any certainty about that at all. It seems to me, on looking at the Statute, that Parliament has given power to the Home Secretary to make Regulations under the Act and that those Regulations are legally binding once he has made them; and it is not provided by the Emergency Powers Act that it should be a condition precedent to their validity that they should be laid on the Table. That is not provided for. All that is provided is that they should be laid as soon as may be. It does not say that if they are not laid they would be of no effect. It seems to me that they are legally binding from the moment they are laid, and certainly legally binding until a Prayer has been put down and they are annulled. If that be the case, it is a point that ought to be dealt with clearly and unequivocably by the Attorney-General. If that be the case, this Bill is unnecessary.
The Home Secretary stated when this matter was first announced that, so far as he knew, there were no sanctions for a failure to lay Rules and Regulations upon the Table. If he is right about that this


Bill, again, is unnecessary. I feel grave doubts about this matter when I look at the contents of the Bill. We are asked to give an indemnity to the Secretary of State in person, and then Clause I goes on to provide that these Regulations shall be deemed to have been duly laid before Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the Statute under which they were made. It does not seem to me that these two parts of the Clause are consistent. You either want power of indemnity to cover all people who have acted under these Regulations, or you want a simple Clause which consists solely of the words:
Those Regulations shall be deemed to have been duly laid before Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the Statute under which they were made.
If those words are sufficient to protect all the people who have acted under the Regulations, they are also sufficient to protect the Secretary of State.
I wish to make a further point, which has been dealt with to some extent by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). With the wording of Clause I, we in this House, although the Regulations have been recently placed upon the Table, will deprive ourselves of any opportunity of praying against them because, if the Regulations are deemed to have been duly laid three years ago, the time for praying against them must clearly have passed. I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill if the necessity for it is made clear, but in all that the Home Secretary said, and in all that has been said since, we have had no clear statement as to the position of these Regulations up to this moment. Are they invalid and of no legal effect? If so, there is a need for indemnity. If, on the other hand, the position is, as I think, that they are legally binding, even though they have not been laid on the Table, there is no need for the Bill. That is the question which ought to have been answered and dealt with straight away when this Bill was introduced.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I respond, in the first place, to the invitation of the Home Secretary for suggestions as to how the contretemps that we are discussing can be avoided in the future. There is another and, I believe, a simpler method than that suggested by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Wil-

Liams). When we begin to consider a Bill, the first step is a formal First Reading followed by a direction that the Bill should be printed. It is well known that Bills are, in fact, printed, not once but many times, before they come to the First Reading, and that the actual Bill which is presented to the House is waiting at the Vote Office to be distributed as soon as the formal First Reading procedure has been gone through. What is meant by the House ordering the printing is really ordering the publication for purposes of discussion by Members or of perusal by the public and for the purposes of sale. I suggest that we adopt the procedure directed, not to the printing, but to the distribution for perusal by Members and for sale to the public, by fixing a specific step which has to be carried out before the Stationery Office can distribute a Statutory Rule and Order. That could be simply done by a direction that the Stationery Office shall not print for distribution and publication a Statutory Rule and Order until they have received from the appropriate office in this House a stamp to indicate that that Order or Regulation has been laid.
If, therefore, a general order were to go forth to the Government Departments that they cannot ask for the distribution of Orders and Regulations from the Stationery Office without going through that simple procedure, it would secure that every Order had been dully laid before it was distributed. I know that it is technically possible for an Order to come into effect when it is signed by the Minister and that it might be operated upon without being printed. In these days, however, Orders which are issued affect so many people outside the Department, and they have to be brought to the attention of so many, that in practice it would be impossible for an Order to be operated upon until it had been duly presented. It was suggested in the Debate that the existence of the Select Committee, coloquially referred to as the "watch dog" Committee, on which I have the honour to sit, would not have been effective in the circumstances we are considering to prevent Orders being operated upon without being laid. I have no right to speak on behalf of the other members of that Committee, but, expressing my own view, I venture to suggest that the existence of the Committee at that time would have proved a proper defence. The Regula-


tions, as we heard from the Home Secretary, gave rise to discussion, and I cannot imagine that no member of the Committee would not have asked, "Why have they not been before us?" and other Members of the House would not have said, "What have you to say about these Regulations you are supposed to have considered?" The procedure I have suggested with regard to printing and publication and the existence of the Select Committee will, I suggest, make ample provision to prevent such errors as this in the future.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) embarked on a discussion whether the Bill was unnecessary. It is, indeed, curious to have had a member of the Government coming before the House asking for a Second Reading of a Bill without stating at any time in his explanation of the Bill that it was necessary. One is tempted to follow the discussion embarked upon by the hon. Member, but I refrain from doing so, to the relief, I have no doubt, of the House. There is, however, another aspect than the purely legalistic aspect. It may well be contended that, from the legal point of view, no such step as this Bill is necessary, and that, from the point of view of possible action in the courts, there is no need for this indemnification; but surely, when Parliament has enjoined that a Regulation shall be laid, even though the failure to lay it may have no consequences in the courts, it is right that the Minister involved should come to the House and ask for an indemnity for his failure to carry out the duty enjoined on him by the House. That, I think, is the answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Daventry as to the necessity of the first part of Clause I. It starts off with an indemnity, given by this House in the most formal way in which the House can express itself, to the Home Secretary himself who is responsible for the failure. For these reasons, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and all the other stages in the most rapid possible time.

Mr. Hutchinson: I take the same view as regards the validity of these Regulations as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), but, unlike him, I hope the House will pass this Indemnity Bill. I believe

that it is necessary that we should. Whether the validity of these Regulations depends upon their having been laid on the Table or not, it is clear that that is a question which is open to doubt. So long as the possibility remains that it may be held elsewhere that the Regulations are invalid by reason of the failure to lay them before Parliament it is reasonable that my right hon. Friend should come to the House and ask for a Bill of Indemnity. It has been pointed out that it is improbable that any individual or authority has been damnified by failure to lay these Regulations before Parliament. The Regulations have been published and circulated, and they have, no doubt, been canvassed among all those whose interests are affected by them, but no Member of the House has come forward with a Prayer that any of the Regulations should be annulled. That being so, the House can fairly assume that those whose interests are affected have not desired the Regulations to be challenged by a Prayer for their annulment. Had any hon. Member desired to do so the whole matter would have been brought to light. We can be sure that this is a proper case in which the House ought to grant an indemnity.
The House ought certainly to be particularly careful when it is asked to pass a Bill of this nature. This House is the special custodian and guardian of the rights of individual citizens and, therefore, a special duty rests upon this House to be sure that if there has been some failure on the part of the Executive no individual has been injured in his individual rights or in his rights of property by that failure. I am satisfied that in this case the House can, with full responsibility, give the Home Secretary the indemnity for which he asks. We may be sure that nobody has any legitimate grounds for being aggrieved by this failure.
The party who is really aggrieved by this failure is this House. I recollect the Home Secretary some time ago, in a Debate that, we had on delegated legislation, arguing that Parliament had divested itself of its control over matters which are the subject of delegated legislation, and had substituted for its own control the action of the Minister. That is only partly true, because Parliament has always reserved the important right of annulment under these Defence Regulations. I think that Parliament is entitled to feel aggrieved


because in this case we have not had the opportunity which ought to have been given to us for exercising this right. In recent years, there has been evident a certain impatience by some of the great civil Departments of State of the forms of Parliamentary and judicial control. The extension of the principle of delegated legislation has increased that impatience. I suggest that that is the most disturbing aspect of this matter. It is disquieting that the means by which Parliament exercises control over delegated legislation should have been treated as a mere formality to which a purely mechanical compliance was regarded as sufficient. It has been said that when these Regulations were made there was great urgency to protect the population from the effects of fire. But this is a matter that has been going on now for three years. There has been a failure on no less than 23 occasions. It is difficult to absolve those who are responsible for this prolonged failure on that ground. This failure has gone on for too long. The House ought to be satisfied that the importance of the control which it retains over delegated legislation is fully appreciated by those who are responsible in these matters.
As the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has said, we must be satisfied that there will be no repetition of this incident. How are we going to be sure of that? I have put down an Amendment to make the validity of these Regulations depend upon their being laid before Parliament. I am grateful for the assurance of the Home Secretary that this matter will receive the consideration of the Government and that steps will be taken to ensure that this will not occur again. My right hon. Friend suggested that a difficulty might arise because in the case of many of these Regulations benefits were assured to certain people and were dependent upon the validity of the Regulations. That is true but that is, surely, a good reason why this will be the most effective, if not the only effective, safeguard which we can devise to prevent repetition of incidents such as this. If my right hon. Friend feels that it is a difficulty that a person's rights or benefits should have to depend upon compliance with the Act, I suggest that he might consider whether the validity of the Regulations should not depend in the first instance upon their being laid before Parliament within a reasonable time, so that

if they are not laid within the prescribed time they should cease to be valid; but if, later, they are laid after the prescribed time, their validity should then be revived at once. A provision on the lines which I have suggested would ensure Regulations being laid before the House at the proper time; but, if that was not done, it would still be within the power of the Minister to bring the Regulations into operation without delay by laying them later before Parliament.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the assurance which he has given us and I hope that as a result he may be able to prevent this kind of thing occurring again. The most unsatisfactory feature of the whole of this incident is that it was possible for as long as three years for those responsible for carrying out this duty apparently to have overlooked the control which this House has the right to exercise over delegated legislation.

Mr. W. J. Brown: This inquest is becoming unduly prolonged. It is obvious that there has been a Departmental blunder. The degree of that blunder does not in the least depend upon the fact that it has extended for three years. Reading between the lines it is obvious that the same cause which precipitated the original mistake is responsible for the subsequent mistakes. There has been a defect in the machinery of the Home Office. The Minister has accepted full responsibility and has asked us, for an Act of Indemnity, which I think we should give with reasonably good grace. The remarkable thing is not that there should have been a slip-up, not that the House of Commons should have shown itself properly concerned about its interests, and about seeing that delegated legislation goes through the proper stages, but that, in five years' stress of war, this is the first time there has been an occasion for complaint in regard to these particular matters. Some of us who see the public service from the inside are aware of the tremendous impact of the war upon working conditions inside Government Departments. The burden of work has been enormously increased, and the whole machine has been subjected to a strain the intensity of which few people realise. There are few Departments in which the impact of war has been heavier than on the Home Office and the Ministry of Home Security. Some of the problems of the


war were foreseeable and could have been planned against, but many of the problems of these Departments could not have been envisaged. The remarkable thing is that the Civil Service has made so few mistakes.
But I hope that, as we have shown mercy to the Home Secretary, he will, in turn, show mercy to his subordinates. I said the other day that I only had one doubt about the Home Secretary, and that was that he had police blood in his veins. He was the son of a copper. As a follower of the theological persuasion that what all of us need is not justice but mercy, and especially those on the Front Bench there, I hope that as we have shown mercy to the Home Secretary, he will find it possible to take a less strict view of offences in the Fire Service and the Prison Service and the other services he controls, which very often are as inadvertent and unintentional as the offence for which he asks our mercy to-day. Let there be inscribed on the portals of the Home Office hereafter, and especially on the Home Secretary's table, the motto, "Mercy—not Justice. Freely we have received, let us freely give."

Mr. Petherick: I was rather disappointed, in listening to the Home Secretary's speech, to find that he did not deal with one matter which I think would be of great interest to the House, that is, to explain precisely how the machinery went wrong, and what in fact really happened. I agreed entirely with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown), when he said that it was a case of the initial error made by somebody being perpetrated time after time, because the machinery, presumably, was not overhauled, and the fact that these various Orders had or had not been laid, was not in fact checked. I do not believe this to be a great constitutional issue, but it is a constitutional issue—what we might call a middleweight one.
We should look at it from the point of view of human nature. For that reason it would be interesting to know—I do not know whether the Attorney-General can tell us—how this thing really happened. What appears to have happened is that somebody, in the earlier stages, committed what is known in ordinary unparliamentary language as a "bloomer," which may happen in any Government

office or any other kind of office. It depends entirely on how big that error is as to whether it becomes important or not, What is rather essential is that it should be made impossible for that error to be committed again. I was not favourably impressed by the Home Secretary, in his very good defence of his Department, saying that of course they were fighting the flames so much that they really could not be expected to avoid errors such as this, though it should not happen again. Obviously, I think, it was a case of one person having slipped up, and of that excellent Department, including the Home Secretary, having to atone for his errors.
I come to the point of the Home Secretary's case. We should like to know what "as soon as may be" is. I presume it to be the equivalent of "as soon as the thing may be done," or, in other words, as soon as possible. I do not raise that point from any legalistic motive, but for a definite reason to which I will come in a moment. When the Government think an Order is necessary and they desire to issue it, what is the intention of this House, by putting into the Statute concerned that that Order shall be laid before Parliament "as soon as may be?" I take that to mean quite definitely "as soon as possible," or "at the earliest possible moment," or "at the earliest moment practicable, at which it is available for the ordinary public." I should rather like to know what is the physical sequence of events in the making of an Order. After it is printed, does it go to the Privy Council for the Privy Council's Seal, and is it when the Privy Council's Seal is put upon it that the Order is made?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The Regulations in question are not Orders in Council.

Mr. Petherick: Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will interrupt me again on that point, as to when these Orders are deemed to have been made, or perhaps he will be kind enough to look into that point and deal with it in his reply.
It is clear that so far as laying these Orders before Parliament is concerned, it is essential, if Parliament is sitting, that they shall be laid before Parliament at the same time as they are published, and if Parliament is not sitting that they


should be sent to the Journal Office of the House, and that the Journal Office, or some other equivalent office of the House, should be responsible for tabling the Order the moment the House returns. I was at one time, for about a year, at the Foreign Office, and I suppose every other Department works in somewhat similar fashion. There was a thing called a distributions list, and when important documents came in they were sent to other Departments of State, and various particular persons. What happens when an Order is being or has been made? Is there a distribution list of Government Departments to which that Order ought to be sent? It seems to me that here we have a simple question of machinery. If the House of Commons and the House of Lords had been put on that distribution list of places to which the Order in question has to be sent at the same time as it is made, it seems to me all this fuss, bother and trouble might very well have been avoided. I can very well imagine at the present time the rest of the Government Departments searching frantically through all their Orders for several years past, to find out if they also have fallen into the same mistake.
There is one other point I should like to make. It has been questioned whether this Bill of Indemnity is necessary or not. I find it a little difficult to make up my mind on that. I presume the reason the Bill has been brought forward is that there shall be nothing left to chance, and in order, quite properly, to give the Home Secretary and civil servants acting under his orders, complete indemnity for any possible error which may have been made, and as a result of which legal proceedings might have been taken. There is one point about which I am a little doubtful. It is the question of the Orders having been deemed to have been laid. Are these Orders we find in the Schedule deemed to have been laid "as soon as may be" after their issue, that is, in some cases three years ago, or are they deemed to have been laid from 26th July only, a few days back? It seems to me there is rather an important point there, because if they are deemed to have been laid only from 26th July, have they therefore been legally valid all that time, because unless "as soon as may be" is deemed to go back three years, nobody can say that has been carried out. If they were,

therefore, only deemed to have been laid from 26th July, a number of things have; been done over the last three years under them. Are these acts legally valid or not? If they are not, if there is any doubt about their being legally valid, would it not be advisable to consider the insertion of a retrospective Clause to say quite definitely that, in addition to giving the Home Secretary complete indemnity, which we all wish to do, anything that has been done under these Regulations shall be deemed to have been legal? Perhaps the Attorney-General will consider that matter.
I do not believe anyone would wish to accuse the Home Secretary of having wittingly done anything wrong at all. He himself is only guilty of a constitutional error as the head of his Department, and he is responsible for all the officers of that Department. Somebody has slipped up. The Home Secretary came down at the earliest possible moment, and apologised most respectfully to the House, and I do not think for one moment that the House of Commons, so far as I have listened to this Debate to-day, will refuse him the indemnity. I hope it will be given to him and his path made as easy as possible.

Mr. Buchanan: I rise only to say a word or two, after listening, I think, to every speech with one exception. An occasion like this makes me recall my early days in the Socialist movement and George Bernard Shaw saying that the best way to succeed in public life was to make a mistake and then admit it. Of all the instances of mistakes made by a Home Secretary being lauded and praised, to-day's Debate is about the best example. Everybody has praised the Home Secretary. Indeed, I would advise the Home Secretary, who has a great reputation of doing the popular thing, not to commit any more mistakes for a long time because this one seems to be terribly popular.
I cannot follow the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) at all. Indeed regarding the point I raised with Mr. Speaker about discussing the Clauses, when this Bill is passed, the laying of the Regulations before the House becomes really a farce, because if we approve the Bill to-day we are in effect saying that three years ago these Regulations were correct. Obviously we cannot


approve of a Bill to-day which approves Regulations made three years ago and in operation ever since, and also say that the Regulations are wrong. Obviously when we pass this Bill to-day we are, in effect, passing the Regulations and we cannot now say that they were wrong. That is in effect what we are doing. In regard to the discussion of the errors of the Home Secretary and his servants in the Department, I claim it may well have been a servant's mistake, but I still take the Parliamentary view that it is the Home Secretary's mistake. Because somebody else may have been guilty of a mistake, he too has been guilty of it, and I hope that he will be no less generous to the servant of the Home Office, than we are being to him.
My memory goes back to the last Home Secretary who made a mistake of this kind. In those days there were healthy differences of opinion in the House of Commons and everybody did not kick the ball the same way. We had the right to differ without being seriously looked upon as an obstacle to the progress of democracy. On that occasion I moved the Adjournment, and I remember that the Government of the day had to pay fairly large sums of money to indemnify citizens who had been wrongly treated by the Home Office in that case, which arose on the Irish question.
My view is that the Home Secretary when he came to the House made an excellent job of admitting his mistake. But he proceeded, I thought, to treat this House rather cheaply at the finish. I do not think he treated it quite fairly on that occasion. It seems to me he has made all amends possible and to have admitted all his mistakes. This Bill is the result. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) raised the legal principle. He was not sure whether this Bill was legal. Of course it is legal, for this reason. There would be grave doubt in any legal man's mind on whether an action would not succeed in the courts, if the Bill were not passed. No Home Secretary could go on functioning with a host of actions proceeding against him in the courts; this Bill must be passed to allow the Home Secretary to continue. But I regret that the thing has happened. The chief protagonist in this question of legislation by reference has been the Home Secretary, and it is unfortunate

that he should have been responsible for the mistake that has occurred. My own view is that, now that he has done the thing decently, we should drop the matter. I do not think anything we have done to-day will stop the same kind of thing happening in future. This mistake arises out of the procedure we follow during the war. In the normal course of peacetime politics there is the clash of opinion; that is the best safeguard that this House of Commons can have, and the sooner we can return to the normal clash in this House and the normal duel in the country, the better; for that is the only safety we can find for the future in this country.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I rise only because of a point that was made by the Home Secretary. I do not want to say anything derogatory. I think he has behaved admirably in coming so frankly to this House, and I do not think that a Bill of Indemnity should be begrudged him. Nor do I wish to interfere with the National Fire Service, I do not think anyone will try to annul any of the Regulations made for that Service, except, perhaps, one or two lesser ones here and there. The National Fire Service is an institution which has been most valuable to us in this time of stress. But a point made by the Home Secretary strikes a note of warning to all of us. He said that the mistake was made largely because the officials were so concerned with the building up of the National Fire Service that they hardly thought of anything else—that each official thought that some other official was going to see to this matter. This is highly significant. In the case of Regulations such as this, I do not think it matters very much, because, as I have said, the National Fire Service is an excellent institution; but suppose these Regulations had concerned the liberty of the subject or the business interests and activities of the subject. Then, indeed, we see the danger of bureaucratic government, to which we are rapidly proceeding, under which each official will think that the other has done the job.
Here is my second point. The Ministry of Home Security, after all, has a special Parliamentary Secretary to deal with these particular matters. I would like to ask the Home Secretary why the Parliamentary Secretary did not see that these Regulations were laid in a proper man-


ner. I should have thought—I say it with deep respect—that that should have been a special duty of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that there must have been some error, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should have dealt with this particular question. Those are the two points that I had in mind. I repeat that I would warn the House that this is a pointer to what might happen in regard to the liberty of the subject, and with the business and activities of the subject, when we are ruled by officials, no one of whom is actually responsible for anything. It amply demonstrates the danger of bureaucratic government.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): There have been a certain number of rather disconnected questions with which I have been asked to deal. I will endeavour to do so, but, first, I should like to express, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, his appreciation of the way in which the Bill and his speech have been accepted by the House, and the generous way in which Members have supported this Bill to deal with the situation. Perhaps the most fundamental question was that formulated in the first instance by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He asked what seemed to be a very searching question. He said, "Is the Bill really necessary?" and he asked why, if it were not, we were being troubled with it. He took the view, and in this lie was supported by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), that these Regulations, although admittedly not laid "as soon as may be," remained valid. The House appreciates that Regulations made under this Act came into force as soon as they were made. Then, if the proper procedure were followed, they would be laid, and they could be prayed against. If the Prayer succeeded they would not cease to operate ab initio, but only from the date that the Prayer was accepted by the House.
My hon. Friends took the view—and there is a good deal to be said for it—that the failure to lay, although a grave error and an omission on behalf of my right hon. Friend, does not invalidate the Regulations. You cannot say, "This ought to have been laid on 1st June and it is now 30th June, and, therefore, it becomes invalid," just as if it had been annulled by a Prayer. They say that, if that is so,

the latter part of Clause I is unnecessary. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, while accepting that legal point of view, thought—and others have said the same—that, whatever the legal position, it was constitutionally right that, if there had been an omission to do what the Statute said should be done, it was right not merely that there should be a statement to the House, but that the matter should be dealt with in a Bill which the House could discuss. I agree with that, and I would say that, although my two hon. Friends may be right on the legal position, it is possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, for an argument to be raised on the other side, and for someone to say that these words go to the root of the matter, and that if a substantial time had elapsed the court ought to hold the Regulations invalid. Obviously, doubts must be cleared up, and that is done in the Bill. I also agree with those who say that, although the legal position may be fairly certain, it is constitutionally right in the circumstances for the House to be asked to pass a Bill in these terms.
One of my hon. Friends asked why are there two parts to the Bill. The Fire Service (Emergency Provisions) Act puts on the Home Secretary the duty of laying these Regulations. Whatever may be the argument as to the legal validity of the Regulations, quite plainly the Home Secretary has not complied with that mandatory provision in the Statute. Therefore, we thought it right to pass the Bill in its double form: first, giving an indemnity to the Home Secretary for having failed to perform a duty which Parliament has placed upon him, for which Parliament can hold him to account, and, secondly, providing that the Regulations shall be deemed to be valid although they have not been laid for a considerable period. I think that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) is wrong in thinking that these words prevent a Prayer being moved. These Regulations were laid a week ago, and the 28 days during which a Prayer can be taken begin to run from the date on which the Regulations are laid. If the Prayer were passed, does that mean, he asked, that it would invalidate the Regulations from three years ago? The answer is, "No." When a Prayer is passed, what happens


is that the Order is annulled from the date of the House accepting the Prayer.
A number of suggestions have been made as to lines of inquiry that it might be profitable to pursue, with a view to seeing that such a thing does not happen again. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes), my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) made suggestions, and all those will certainly be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth asked how exactly this happened. My right hon. Friend explained, but I will explain again. In the Department of the Ministry of Home Security, dealing with this matter, everybody thought that somebody else was seeing to the laying. It might have happened anywhere. Do not let us be censorious: we all make mistakes sometimes; but they do not always have such serious consequences.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: By whose actual confession, or somewhat belated vigilance, has it come to light; and is there not a Parliamentary division in the Home Office?

The Attorney-General: It was one of the Department's officers—I do not think it would be appropriate to go beyond that. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth also asked when Orders of this kind come into force. They come into force as soon as they are signed. They are then sent to the Stationery Office, and, in the case of Orders of this kind, those who are affected by them are informed. In this case there would be notice in the Press, and so on. The signature is followed by the distribution, and, as soon as the Orders are signed, they are made, and come into force. So, as soon as they are signed, steps are taken to see that they are distributed.

Mr. Petherick: Then all that is really necessary is to make quite sure that the House of Commons and another place are put on the distribution list, as a matter of form, in the case of every Government Department.

The Attorney-General: It may be. One hopes that it is as simple as that, but I say that it is one of the suggestions we will look into. It is only right that I

should answer another question, which was whether these things were sent to the House. They were. I am told that they were sent both to the Vote Office and to the Library, but, unfortunately, they were not sent to the office which receives them for the purpose of their being laid. We will look into this, but that is what, in fact, happened. I think that deals with the points raised and I would conclude by repeating the appreciation of my right hon. Friend of the way in which the House has given him support in this problem.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Beechman.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Indemnity.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. In view of what the Attorney-General has said on Second Reading, I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Petty-Officer Herbert: I handed in an Amendment this morning——

The Chairman: I have not selected the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, but he is entitled to speak on the Clause standing part.

Petty-Officer Herbert: It is only a drafting Amendment, but I think it is an important one. I am not apologising to the Committee for trying to get the language of our Statutes as clear as can be. I invite the attention of the Committee to line 25. Whatever the meaning of "as soon as may be" is—and I am obliged to the Attorney-General for telling us that it means" as soon as possible in the circumstances"—it is quite clear in line 25, but, in the circumstances, ought it not to be "as soon as might have been"? In line 7, it sets out the terms of the original Act—
shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made,
and in line 25 we read that, after the phrase about failure to lay the Regulations before Parliament—
as soon as may be after they were made


Of two things we should do one—either make it "are" or alter the "may" to "might have been."

Mr. Molson: May I ask if it would not do as well to put "as soon as may be" in inverted commas?

Petty-Officer Herbert: I am told that that is not the practice.

Mr. Gallacher: In saying just a couple of words upon this Clause, I would direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that, in the wording of the Bill, the Secretary of State is—
hereby freed, discharged and indemnified from and against all consequences whatsoever, if any, incurred or to be incurred by him by reason of the said failure.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to get that printed and carry it with him at all times, so that he may have as much consideration for other unfortunate failures as this Committee is having for him at this particular time.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) has joined in the "might have been" argument, but I think the suggestion that those words should be inserted here is unacceptable. Though they may have some grammatical support, I rather doubt it, because what we are reciting here is the exact wording of the Act of Parliament against the consequences of the disregard of which the Secretary of State is indemnified. Inverted commas are not put in Statutes, but I think it can easily be put right, and I think it is better to leave it as it is for the time being.

Petty-Officer Herbert: As I have pointed out, that is what we are not doing. If we were quoting the Statute, we would alter "are." Why alter "are" to "were" if we are not altering "may" to "might have been"?

The Attorney-General: I think, in fact, that there is no Amendment before the Committee.

Petty-Officer Herbert: One of the Departments of the University I represent is concerned with the language, and I am concerned with the language of the Statute. I do not know what the remedy is, but I do not like it.

Major Thorneycroft: I would ask the Attorney-General to give a little

more consideration to the suggestion which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend. If it is not an Amendment before the Committee, it was nevertheless a suggestion put forward, and it does seem possible for the Government themselves to move an Amendment on the Report stage to clear up the point my hon. and gallant Friend has raised.

The Attorney-General: We will look into this in another place.

Hon. Members: Why not now?

The Attorney-General: The Question before the Committee is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Hon. Members: On the Report stage?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: As soon as may be?

Petty-Officer Herbert: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I do not see why the House of Commons should not do what it can to send this Bill forward in proper language. This is not the first time this has happened to me, and I have had nothing but contemptuous phrases from that Bench.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was not called, it is not my fault. The Question is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The only thing I can possibly do is to promise to consider it in another place.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. Is it not in Order for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) to move an Amendment on Third Reading?

The Chairman: No, it would not be in Order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): On the Third Reading of the Bill,


I wish to take the opportunity of thanking the House for its consideration to the Minister of Home Security in this difficult matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMO DATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mrs. Tate: On a point of Order. I think that the House is aware that we are about to discuss the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill, one of the most important Bills, apart from the war, that has come before this House. It is not too much to say that, on temporary housing, which is absolutely vital to the post-war years——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry, but the hon. Lady cannot raise that question now. There is no point of Order.

Mrs. Tate: This is the point of Order—whether it is desirable that, at this hour, we should begin the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not, in any event, a point of Order.

Mr. Silkin: Would it be in Order at this stage to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again?

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. When the House is not in Committee, can an hon. Member move to report Progress?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No one but the Government can move to adjourn between the Orders. We have not entered upon the Question yet.

Mr. Shinwell: After my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has proceeded, say, for half an hour, would it then be appropriate for an hon. Member to move that the Debate be adjourned?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be in Order to move an appropriate Motion when the Question has been put.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the Leader of the

House last week undertook that an extension would be given? Would he answer that point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry but I cannot allow any discussion, because, at present, there is no Question before the House. The Minister of Health.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to be clear on this point. Does the Minister make a speech before the Question is put to the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is the usual custom and practice of the House for the Minister to make his speech, and then to move, and the Question will be proposed. It will then be competent for hon. Members to raise questions of the kind they have indicated.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for an hon. Member to move, "That the House do now adjourn" for the reasons hinted at already?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already indicated that that cannot be done by a Private Member at this stage of the proceedings. The Minister of Health.

Mrs. Tate: On a point of Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the Minister, but this is vitally important. On what occasion can a back bench Member protest about a Bill of this importance being brought in at this hour?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady can raise this matter after the Question has been put to the House.

Mr. Silverman: I hesitate to question anything that comes from you, Sir, but many hon. Members would like guidance on the point whether an hon. Member can move to adjourn the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That can only be done in accordance with Standing Orders.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that, following a Government Order, we have now before us this Housing Bill? The orders have been given by the Government, and, according to those orders, the Minister has placed this Housing Bill before us.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is so. The occasion has not yet arisen to raise the questions which I gather some hon. Members have in mind.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is a comfort to me to know that there is, at any rate, time left, before the rising of the House, for me to complete the few observations I have to make. It was as long ago as January, 1943, that a Subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, of which the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is Chairman, advised my predecessor that for a number of reasons, with which the House is familiar, there would be a serious shortage of family accommodation at the end of the war, and that, whatever might be done, there would be a period before the provision of permanent housing could meet even the most urgent part of the housing demand.
The Government reached the same conclusion, and the House will recall the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to the Noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) on 19th July, when he stated that the Government had reviewed the potential building capacity of the country and had come to the conclusion that it would not be possible, for some years, to build enough permanent houses to meet the urgent demands for separate homes. It was this review that led to my own statement on the Second Reading of the recent Housing Bill that, in the view of the Government, the maximum number of permanent houses that could be built or building by the end of the second year after the end of the war in Europe was 300,000. That figure is based upon an estimate that at the end of this part of the war the labour force for building of all kinds will be between 350,000 and 380,000, as against the prewar strength of about 1,000,000, and that its restoration during the first two years can be only gradual. I do not think my estimate has been challenged in any informed quarter as being timid or pessimistic.

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the Minister oblige the House by answering the following question? There are 1,000,000 people belonging to this building industry, but he says there will not be more than 380,000. Where are the other 600,000 people going to?

Mr. Willink: Many are in the Forces and many are not in the industry who

would otherwise have joined it, but that is a question to be put to other Ministers rather than to myself. Normally I welcome interruptions, but if interruptions which should be addressed to other Ministers are addressed to me, I shall never be able to cover in a reasonable time the important points I have to cover.
Day by day, particularly while the present form of attack continues, the problem that we see ahead of us grows in scale. Nothing could have been more clear during the Debates on the recent Housing Bill, than that this House is insistent that the question of housing should be handled with imagination and with special energy. The Bill, the Second Reading of which I move to-day, gives an opportunity for full discussion of a vital element in the Government's programme. It is the opportunity which was promised by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, when he stated that the Government had approved the model of an emergency factory-made house and were planning for full-scale production as soon as the necessary industrial capacity can be released from the war effort. I would stress that this project is large: it is novel; it gives rise to a number of questions in which I feel sure the House is interested.
Perhaps, as I shall be dealing to-day with matters concerning not only the Health Departments, but also the Department of my Noble Friend the Minister of Works, I should remind the House of our respective spheres. A Question was asked with regard to this only a few days ago. This is the position. While the primary responsibility for housing policy continues to rest with my Department, and while the Ministry of Health, so far as concerns England and Wales, will be the single channel of communication between the Government and the local housing authorities, my Noble Friend's Department is the central Government authority on design, specifications, materials and building technique. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works hopes to intervene at a later stage to-day.

Sir Percy Harris: If more than one Minister is to take part in the Debate to-day, will it not be impossible for hon. Members to have the necessary time to put their points?

Mr. Willink: I think it is quite likely that in the course of the speeches there will be questions asked which will be most conveniently answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Gallacher: Shall we not get a speech from the Secretary for Scotland?

Mr. Willink: It seems less likely that there will be time for three Ministers than that there will be time for two.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to two Ministers, and possibly three. He has made no reference to labour supply. Which Department is to be responsible for supplying the building labour? Apparently not the Ministry of Health and not the Ministry of Works. Is it the Ministry of Labour, and will the Minister of Labour also make a speech?

Mr. Willink: I think the House will find that the points I raise to-day, apart from the size of the building industry, will be quite sufficient to occupy the time we have at our disposal. It would be impossible, in dealing with this Bill, to go into the whole question of distribution of labour during those two years. It being our objective to provide in the shortest possible time the maximum number of separate homes for families, and it being agreed that this objective could not be achieved by permanent housing, immediate questions of policy arose, and it was clear that there were a number of conditions which should be fulfilled.
In the first place, we felt that the part to be played by any temporary accommodation was the filling of a temporary gap until the building industry could make good the accumulation of shortage due to enemy action and the cessation of building. We felt that it was of the first importance that this project should not delay the building of permanent houses, and, consequently, that it should make the minimum demand upon the building industry. That consideration pointed to a type of building capable of production away from the site—a type of building, so far as possible, factory-made. I shall be describing the model in a moment or two, but on this particular point I am advised by my Noble Friend the Minister of Works that whereas it is usually reckoned that it takes 100,000 building operatives to build 100,000 houses in a

year, the building labour required for 100,000 of these bungalows is not more than 8,000 to 10,000. From now on, accepting the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson), I propose, to use the term "bungalow," which seems to be both convenient and accurate.
The second object which we feel clearly needs to be attained in a programme of this kind is speed. We must have a scheme to meet urgent needs as quickly as possible, and that points to standardisation. We shall be making a start in time of war, and production must depend on the scale of productive capacity and the time at which it can be made available; but we have reason to think that something of the order of 100,000 of these bungalows can be produced within one year of going into production.
The third question is one of rather more complexity but we felt it to be of importance that the emergency provision should consist of structures which were definitely intended not to stand for more than a limited period and that their design should comply with that intention. One can achieve economy of labour, economy of material and economy of time if one accepts some reduction in our normal standards, primarily our standard of total size. It is a fact—and a comforting fact in considering this proposal—that a large proportion of those who are in urgent need immediately after the war will be young couples married during the war, or indeed, after it, and the concurrent building of the permanent houses —the 300,000 permanent houses—will go towards meeting the needs of those with larger families. That is the broad plan. But I should like to make it clear to what extent these bungalows can be properly described as below the normal standard. The word "sub-standard" has been used and it is only right that I should make clear as far as I can what is meant by "sub-standard." Obviously, the bungalow is sub-standard in external appearance. This can be mitigated by a judicious variation of colour, and, in course of time, by climbing plants. But in its structure and design, the bungalow is sub-standard in two respects only. The first is this: the normal minimum height of rooms under most building by-laws is eight feet—the height of the rooms in the bungalow is seven feet six inches. But


on this point the House can feel absolutely assured that the ventilation is so arranged that there is no ground for any anxiety whatever on any question of health with regard to the height of seven feet six inches, and it results in an economy of material.

Mr. Shinwell: It means that you can put your feet out of the window.

Mr. Willink: No, not unless you have very long legs. In the second place the actual area of the bungalow, if one excludes the detached outdoor shed, is 616 square feet, as compared with the range of 800 to 900 square feet which we contemplate for the normal permanent family house, but one has to remember that there is no staircase, and that there are two bedrooms instead of three. Both the living-room and the two bedrooms are very close in size, taken room by room, to the sizes which will be recommended for the permanent houses and which are recommended by the Dudley Committee. The accommodation of the bungalow consists of a living room, kitchen, two bedrooms, bathroom, separate w.c. and a detached outdoor shed. Very many hon. Members saw the prototype and the improved model, but I think it would be convenient—and I have arranged this—that plans and a description of the model should be made available in the Library; and they will make clear the improvements on the prototype that were made in the later model. I have given the House the only points in which it is right to describe the bungalow as a sub-standard structure. In many respects, particularly the fittings, one has a standard which, I hope, all permanent house-construction will imitate and emulate; and there is this particular point, that the plan transfers to the category of landlord's fixtures many fittings which are normally tenant's fixtures, which I am told are worth approximately £100.
What about the technical and scientific side? On this my Noble Friend the Minister—and I would like to say that I think we owe a very great deal to my Noble Friend's energy in this matter—has obtained for himself a wealth of advice. He has used the full resources of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, particularly the Building Research Station and its former Director, Dr. Stradling. He has even consulted the

Medical Research Council. The materials and method of construction have been very carefully considered. Heat and cold, condensation, noise, liability to wear and tear, cost of upkeep—all these matters have been considered and we intend to produce a simple manual for tenants which will be of assistance in a house with so many novel features and will help them in management and upkeep. It really may turn out to be true that just because we have been planning a structure which is sub-standard, this bungalow has had more attention in matters of detail than any other house or bungalow has ever had before. It is probably more scientifically correct than any house has ever been. I only hope that it will be correspondingly comfortable. There is one particular worth mentioning. Designing a house like this is not altogether unlike designing accommodation in a ship, where you are going to put people into much less space than they sometimes like to occupy. You have to make the very best use of all the space you have, and so, in a bungalow of this character, you must give them good and handy fittings. That is why very special attention has been given to cupboard space, as hon. Members will have noticed, and to a kitchen unit which has been widely admired, with its refrigerator for the storage of food. There is another point which I do not think has been mentioned before, and that is, that a house made of these materials is bad for radio reception. That has been taken account of and an aerial which will provide for that difficulty will be supplied with the house.
So much for the description. Let me pass to the means proposed for production. This Bill is brought before the House at the earliest possible moment and I hope that the House will take the opportunity of discussing it and helping the Government with their suggestions in the time that is available to-day. But these are not hasty proposals. It was in the early months of this year that the Government came to the conclusion that temporary houses of some kind would be necessary. My noble Friend had been working on the house at an even earlier date and he and his Department have continued to work upon the plan ever since. What was the basis for the type of house selected? I would like to make it clear that there is no question of concentrating on one form of construction


for the whole of this emergency period. What was necessary, in the first place, was to find an industry, or a section of industry, capable of large-scale production—and it is very large-scale production—at the earliest date and able to rely on an adequate supply of the materials needed for the job. The pressed steel industry was the industry selected because of its vast experience in wartime production. It has accumulated great facilities and the view was taken that it fulfilled the necessary conditions better than any other. It is in relation to the resources of that industry, therefore, that the bungalow has been designed. There will be at least five firms—there may well be more—which will take part in the production of this bungalow.

Mr. Gallacher: What about Scotland?

Mr. Willink: Nothing has been fixed for Scotland at present.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister had better get busy on the job.

Mr. Willink: Two of these firms, Messrs. Briggs Motor Bodies and the Pressed Steel Company, will provide the bulk of the carcases and the partitions. Then there will be a number of contractors for the fittings, the kitchen unit, and the built-in cupboards. Among the main contractors for these items will be Messrs. Fisher and Ludlow, Ltd., Messrs. Sankey-Sheldon, and Messrs. Rubery Owen. All the concerns which I have mentioned are at present taking part in war production for the Supply Ministries, and I am told that they maintain a most accurate system of costs.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand that the whole thing is cut and dried, that there is to be no open tender, and no precaution has been taken to see whether these firms are connected with each other or not?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. It is perfectly clear that the whole thing is not cut and dried. I was indicating to the House the proposals of my Noble Friend the Minister of Works, and the reasons which have guided him in making the proposals that firms with experience in connection with the carcase or hull, and in connection with the fittings, should be entrusted with this work.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is it not the fact that the firms mentioned just now by the Minister have the highest reputation in the country for this particular kind of business?

Mr. Willink: So I understand.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is not that enough for the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Willink: I am sure the House will give my Noble Friend, and the Government as a whole, the credit for having one objective only, that is, that having selected the model of a temporary house, they should get it produced as quickly and as well as possible.

Sir P. Harris: May I ask the Minister if, in his own interests, he will make it quite clear that this is not a closed concern, and that other firms who show they are capable should be allowed to manufacture these prototypes? It is most important.

Mr. Willink: That will certainly be so, not only in regard to this form of construction but with regard to other forms which I have already indicated will be included if the plan develops.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that there are several very good firms in Scotland specialising in fittings of this character, which would be very suitable to these bungalows?

Mr. Willink: I am sure they will be considered.

Mr. Lipson: Is it proposed that these five firms should be the parent firms of groups, or is it suggested that all the required production will come from these five firms only?

Mr. Willink: That is a technical question which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works will answer. I really cannot tell the House whether there are to be groups of firms. What I wanted to tell the House was this, that these firms are all doing work at present for the Government on an accurate basis of costing, and that this work will be treated as a similar operation.
This is the first design, and the possibility of adding to it is being examined. Provided that the necessary production conditions can be secured, further types will be added. At this very moment


alternative materials for the hull are being considered, and I am advised that they are now likely to be capable of manufacture at a price no higher than the prototype which hon. Members have seen. But if such an alternative is approved, there will have to be an alternative design, though still making use of the standard fittings, which for the sake of speed and economy will, of course, be mass-produced.

Mr. Gallacher: What is the price at present?

Mr. Willink: The House will realise that there are limits to the material available for this project. For instance, all the timber we can get will be required for our programme of permanent houses—or so we believe —and my Noble Friend has taken particular care in connection with this bungalow project not to make use of materials which will be required for the permanent houses. This I regard as a very important point. Surely, if we can find an alternative method of production not making use of those materials, then we are clearly right to use it.
Before I leave the description of the bungalow, I think I might truly say that my Noble Friend, in full consultation with myself, has taken very careful note of the suggestions that emerged from the exhibition of the model. I do not know whether there is any precedent for a model house of this kind, or of any kind, being seen by no less than 30,000 people. They included many Members of this House, representatives of the local authorities, and great numbers of men and women from the Services, as well as numbers of housewives. In my view the modifications resulted in a great improvement. I need not detail them to-day, because they will be obvious when the model is examined. But it was, of course, not possible to embody all the suggestions. If my Noble Friend were to try to do that, he might be in the position in which Mr. Henry Ford once found himself, when he tried to embody every suggestion he received in a model car— no one could get into the car and it would not go. The main suggestions, however, were remarkably unanimous and they have been embodied in the new model. May I pass now from the bungalow itself to the administrative arrangements?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Minister suggested that there will be alternative materials and types. Would he indicate approximately what proportion of the total of 250,000 is likely to be alternative types—in other words, what proportion is the Portal type to take of the whole?

Mrs. Tate: The Minister said that these five firms had been given the first orders for interior fittings——

Mr. Willink: No orders have been given.

Mrs. Tate: It is suggested that a certain number of firms are to undertake the fittings; are we to understand that the supply of available material will be allocated to those firms?

Mr. Willink: On the first question, put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart), no alternative design has yet been approved. It is quite impossible, therefore, to say how many houses of alternative design will be provided.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: They are not likely to be.

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) suggests that no alternative design is likely to be approved. I know of no reason why that should be the case. The whole programme will depend on what alternative designs are available. What is essential is that arrangements should be made to bring out the maximum number of houses at the earliest date and I cannot say, before any alternative design has been approved, when any change will be made.

Mr. Bowles: May we know the price at which the second, prototype is to be sold, and what rate of profit the firms will make?

Mr. Willink: I shall come to questions of cost in a moment.

Mr. Astor: Before leaving the question of design, will the necessary draughtsmen be released to firms in order that they may produce designs?

Mr. Willink: I am afraid I do not know what the position is with regard to that. I have not heard that point raised before. But if there are firms capable of mass-production who are too short of staff, it may be possible for them to have such assistance. With regard to the point


raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), if no alternative is found, or if it is decided to make a very substantial number, as is our present intention, of the type which Members have already seen, sufficient material must be allocated to the best producers of these houses. I cannot go further than that.
However, I was anxious to pass on to what is more my own immediate concern —administrative arrangements in connection with the production and distribution of these bungalows. I think it is clear that the arrangements for production, including transport to the site and erection, must be undertaken by the Government, if only because of the need to organise the production in relation to the production of war material. It is for that reason that in Clause 1 of the Bill the Government are to acquire and own the houses and that Clause 7 enables the necessary money to be raised for this purpose. But, as Members will have seen in the Explanatory Memorandum, the purpose and design of the Bill is to assist housing authorities in meeting the immediate shortage of housing accommodation, and that shortage will be greatest in the heavily blitzed areas. The general scheme is that bungalows will be put up on sites chosen, acquired and developed, with the necessary roads and services, by the local authorities. To the utmost possible extent the whole scheme will be treated as part of the housing operations of the local authorities. There will be different and novel methods of providing and paying for the houses, and there will have to be novel and different arrangements as between the Ministry of Health, the Department of Health for Scotland and the local authorities.
Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the question of the terms on which the structures may be made available, and the House will appreciate that these terms need to be worked out in consultation with the local authorities. The broad basis of the arrangements proposed is that terms will be agreed between the Health Departments and the housing authorities, under which the housing authorities will be responsible for the letting, management and repair of the bungalows, and will pay the Health Departments a fixed sum per annum while the bungalows stand. What the amount of that payment will be must, of course, be determined by conclusions

which will be reached in due course as to the proper level of rent and also upon the financial basis of the partnership between the central Government and the local authorities.

Mr. Gallacher: We are told that these houses are to last for a limited term of ten years. Will it not be necessary for a certificate to be issued with each house, giving the date at which it was opened and the date at which it must close, so that it can be made illegal for rents to be drawn from them after that time?

Mr. Willink: I doubt whether there is any need for such a certificate. A simple method of recording when the house is erected would, I think, suffice. I was about to say that I have had a preliminary discussion with representatives of the local authorities, and that these discussions are continuing. Until they have gone further it would be quite inexpedient for me to make any specific statement as to the arrangements. They would not be laid down in the Bill in any event; they would be dealt with in accordance with Clause 3, if that meets with the approval of Parliament, but I ought to give a general indication of the lines which we shall follow. This scheme, in the Government's view, should be assimilated as nearly as possible to the ordinary housing operations of local authorities, and Clause 4 provides for that. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility for housing, but since 1919 they have been aided in the discharge of these responsibilities by Exchequer assistance, the amount of which has varied from time to time. Before the war, in England and Wales it was substantially on the basis of £2 from the Exchequer for every £1 from the rates, and we think that that principle of partnership should be maintained, although we realise fully that this short-term provision must result in a heavier loss on each house during its life and that a much greater proportion of this loss must, quite clearly, be borne by the Government. We feel that the arrangements should be flexible, but we intend that they should be such as to secure in general that the charge per bungalow per annum on the local authority will be no greater than is ordinarily incurred by them in their housing operations. The point has emerged in my first discussion with the local authorities that in certain areas, I think particularly in London,


many of the bungalows may have to be erected on sites where the cost of land is exceptionally high in relation to the cost of the house and the rent obtainable.

Mr. Gallacher: Why not take over the land?

Sir P. Hannon: Let the Minister make his speech.

Mr. Willink: I think we ought to avoid putting these houses on exceptionally expensive land so far as we can, not only because of the financial consequences but because I am most anxious that a proper redevelopment of these closely built areas should not be hampered by small packets of bungalows, if I may so describe them. But where it is unavoidable, we wish to protect the local authority against any undue charges and we propose to provide that if the unavoidable annual loss of any individual local authority, under this Bill, exceeds the equivalent of the statutory contributions payable by them under the housing legislation in farce from time to time, two-thirds of any additional deficit should be made up by the Exchequer. In estimating the annual loss, charges on unremunerative expenditure on cost of acquisition and development of the site will be taken into account.

Mr. Lipson: Is it proposed that local authorities should fix the rents of these bungalows? If so, does that mean that there will be different rents in different parts of the country for exactly the same kind of house?

Mr. Willink: It is proposed that local authorities should fix the rents, as they always do in respect of their housing operations. It may well be, as we all know is the case, that the location of the house in the country will have an effect on its value, on what people are prepared to pay for it. The amount the local authority will charge for the house will depend, among other things, on the figure which they have agreed to pay to the Exchequer year by year in respect of the house and the amount they are prepared to put on the general rates and so forth.
The result which I wish to achieve, reasonably to limit the charge on local authorities, is secured in almost all cases by the Bill and by the Financial Resolution as drafted. But in some areas it might be the case, where almost all the bungalows had to go on exceptionally

expensive land, that there might be no payment due to the Exchequer but rather a payment from the Exchequer to the local authority. For that reason we are not proposing to take the Financial Resolution to-day. I think a small Amendment to the Bill and an addition to the Financial Resolution will be desirable to meet this possible contingency.

Sir Irving Albery: Why is my right hon. and learned Friend, as Minister of Health, moving the Second Reading when the Financial Resolution only provides for a sum of £150,000,000 to defray expenses incurred by the Minister of Works? It seems to me that the Second Reading should be moved by the Minister of Works.

Mr. Willink: Unfortunately, or fortunately for him, my Noble Friend is in another place. As far as the Financial Resolution is concerned, my hon. Friend has stressed, and perhaps clarified, the point that I was making. As drawn, the Resolution provides only for expenditure by the Minister of Works. Our objective with regard to finance as between the Government and local authorities might necessitate expenditure by the Minister of Health, and that is why we are not taking the Financial Resolution to-day.
On the question of cost, my Noble Friend estimates that will be of the order of £600 a bungalow, including transport and erection. This figure includes an addition of some £50 to the original estimate, to provide for improvements made since the prototype was exhibited. These improvements include the extra height of six inches, the outdoor hsed, the front door and the loggia. Breaking up the £600, £100 will be for the services, erection and transport, £100 for the kitchen unit and cupboards, £400 for the carcase, roof, ceiling, and partitions, lining material, doors, insulation paint and the remainder of the fittings. The cost of prefabrication is at present, of course, an estimate. It can be nothing else, but I am advised that the estimate is a fair and safe one. Of course, the steel will be at a controlled price, and the manufacture will be on a "cost plus" basis.

Sir Granville Gibson: Will the £100 allocated to fittings include the stainless steel sink and draining board shown in the second sample house?

Mr. Willink: I am not sure, but the point will be taken note of.

Mr. Bowles: What percentage of profit has the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed to pay?

Mr. Willink: I have not agreed to pay any, and I do not suppose it has yet been fixed. Mine is not a Production Department. I do not even know the range of percentage allowed in a cost plus contract.

Mr. Sloan: Does the cost include the making of roads, drainage and sewerage?

Mr. Willink: It does not. This is merely transport and erection.

Mr. Shinwell: Someone is getting something out of it.

Mr. Willink: There will be ample opportunity to examine that. Very different opinions have been expressed.
I was asked a question about the life of these houses. The financial arrangements are being made on the basis that the average life of the house will be 10 years. It will probably vary from district to district. It will be determined in accordance with the housing situation in each district as building develops and I shall work in close consultation with the local authorities. On the question of removal, we shall have regard to one matter only—both the local authorities and my Department—the housing conditions in the particular district. As to the rent, my broad idea is that these bungalows should be let on terms about equal to the rents charged for local authority houses. It is a smaller house than the ordinary municipal house but it will contain a number of items which are normally tenant's fixtures, giving rise to expense for the tenant. I am sure our administration would be made more difficult if there were any substantial difference between the rent the tenant will have to pay when he moves into a permanent house and what he was paying before in the bungalow.

Mr. Quibell: What are the normal tenant's fixtures which are not in the ordinary house?

Mr. Willink: Gas cooker, electric cooker, and cupboards. There is another feature of the Bill to which I should like to call attention. It bears on its face

the fact that it deals with a short-term programme. That is the reason why the powers are limited to providing structures which can be supplied by 1st October, 1947, the date up to which the subsidy for general needs is to run under the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Bill. That date gives ample time for Parliament and the Government to consider what further action should be taken. With regard to removal, Clause 2 provides for the public control which has always been a feature of this scheme. The bungalows are to be removed as soon as conditions permit.

Mr. Buchanan: That means that in Scotland, as far as one can see, they will be there for 20 or 30 years. They will be almost permanent to that extent.

Mr. Willink: The hon. Member's interventions are always pleasant but I cannot think that that was constructive. If, after 10 years have elapsed, the houses are better than any others that are available, surely he would prefer them to remain. If, on the other hand, permanent houses are available to such an extent that these can be spared, surely the local authorities and the Secretary of State for Scotland will decide to remove them.

Mr. Buchanan: They are permanent houses.

Mr. Willink: This is a Bill dealing with temporary houses.

Mr. Buchanan: They are permanent under the guise of temporary.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister agree that, if the house has to remain because of the exigencies after a period of 10 years, no rent should be charged?

Mr. Willink: That is a different point and does not arise on the Bill.
The final question with which I want to deal, a peculiarly complex and difficult one, is that of the land. If these arrangements are to be effective there is no doubt that the preparatory arrangements by the local authorities must be going on concurrently with the production of the bungalows. It would be disastrous if delivery of the bungalows could not be taken when they were ready and if they were left on the hands of the manufacturers. As soon as the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have concluded our discussions with the local authorities,


action must be taken to secure the necessary sites, whether they are sites eventually to be used for permanent houses or sites which will be used only for these bungalows. At the moment local authorities in Great Britain own sites for something over 250,000 houses. These were acquired with a view to building permanent houses. More sites will be needed, and it is a matter of special urgency to get early entry on sites in order that plans and layouts may be prepared.
I do not think we ought to expect that these additional sites will be prepared, the lay-outs approved and their development carried through with roads and sewers in less than six months. Consequently, it is especially necessary that the work of preparing the lay-outs should in case of need proceed at the same time as the negotiations for the acquisition of the land. That is the explanation of the provision in Clause 5 of the Bill that the local authority should be given power to enter on land at the earliest possible stage, so that they may find out whether it is suitable for their purpose, survey it, take levels and matters of that kind. I regard the acquisition and preparation of land for these houses as an absolutely vital preliminary to the success of the project and we cannot afford any possibility of a hold-up.
If Parliament approves this Bill, we intend to use its provisions at the earliest possible date to meet a need as urgent, in the civil sphere, as any we have ever had to face. The scheme is one which will, I believe, double the provision of new homes in the two years to which I have several times referred, but there is a great deal to be done before the stage of production. I am told that the manufacture of jigs and tools will take six months. I believe that the acquisition and preparation of land will probably take over six months. I commend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House, and hope that the Debate will encourage both the Departments concerned and the local authorities to go ahead with determination.

Mr. Barnes: Before we proceed to the consideration of this Bill, may I ask for guidance on a matter that occupied the attention of the House before the Minister moved the Second Reading, namely, whether it is the intention of the Leader of the House to get the

Second Reading to-day. At Question time the Leader of the House said that he would consider the matter, and see how we got on a little later in the day's proceedings. We have now reached a fairly late hour. I submit that this is a matter of far-reaching consequence in the housing of the people, and the fact that the Government are not taking the Financial Resolution to-day is a, clear indication that the financial commitments cannot be entered into immediately on the passing of the Bill. From the Minister's speech it has become apparent that the House will not be in possession of the costs and commitments which this Measure involves. We are all deeply concerned that we should not start this far-reaching policy of the housing of the people with any sense of muddle in our minds, and nothing would be worse than for the Government to carry the Second Reading of this Bill by a forced sitting or a forced process.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I think the House is conscious of the importance of the matter that we are discussing now, and certainly the Government would not wish to force through the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind against the judgment of the House. Indeed, I think there are few matters affecting the future of our people which have more significance than the subject we are discussing to-day. Therefore, I put to the House this method for our procedure: I do not suggest that we should try to get the Second Reading today. I suggest that we should continue the discussion to give Members a chance to express their views, and that then my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings should have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government from the point of view of his Department. Then, when we reassemble, we might resume the discussion of the Second Reading, if I may borrow a sacred phrase from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, "as soon as may be."

Mr. Barnes: I think that that statement will meet with the general approval of the House. We should use every available hour to consider this matter. While I feel that we shall be serving a right purpose by levelling strong and clear criticism when we consider it necessary, nevertheless, in a matter of this kind, we ought to carry the responsibility of levelling


constructive criticism and not just destructive criticism. When we take into consideration the conditions in which we live to-day, and the circumstances in which we must commence this housing policy, every Member of the House should recognise that the Ministers who are handling the matter have a very formidable task. While that is the case, the House ought to carry a large responsibility to see that this great problem of housing is tackled in a thorough manner. From the Debate on the previous Measure which the Minister of Health submitted, and from the experience he has just had in introducing this Bill, he must be fully aware that his colleagues in the House, representing, I believe, general opinion throughout the country, approach this problem from a critical angle because they are determined that the housing of the people must be done thoroughly and satisfactorily.
I want to make the position of myself and Members on this side perfectly plain. I am confident that in this respect we are no different from Members in other parts of the House. We do not favour makeshifts in housing. If, after surveying the whole problem, we could have expressed our dissatisfaction or disquiet by voting against this Bill, we should have done so. We recognise, however, that the problem will be so grave in its initial stages that whatever plans or efforts any Government might make in this respect, the stresses and strains that will have to be confronted immediately the war with Germany is over will take on an entirely new character to that which we are confronting at this moment. Therefore, it is not the intention of this party to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. In making that statement I want the Minister thoroughly to grasp that it in no way modifies our criticism and that we propose to offer constructive comment to which we trust the Government will give serious consideration.
First let us try to measure the problem which we have to confront. For five years there has been complete cessation of the normal rate of house building in this country, and of house maintenance. That situation is not peculiar to housing but runs all through the economic and physical life of the community. The problem of housing has been terrifically aggravated as a result of enemy action. We are

unable to deal with the figures in this Debate, but general knowledge will confirm that the problem has been increased to appalling dimensions. Overcrowding already exists to a grievous extent throughout the country, and it will become more severe in the industrial areas, where we shall have to house and accommodate the population.

Captain Cobb: That applies also to the rural areas as well, in many parts of the country.

Mr. Barnes: I quite agree and I do not wish in any way to minimise that fact. I am merely emphasising different aspects of the problem and no one should draw from my remarks any suggestion of minimising the gravity of the existing situation. We have to grapple with a total problem of housing. When we are considering the stresses and strains, it is legitimate to emphasise that they fall more severely on some communities than on others. The irritation and feeling expressed at the beginning of the Debate and while the Minister was speaking reflect a general feeling that we are not satisfied with the preparations made by the Government. There is a general desire that housing should be tackled with the same vigour, determination, thoroughness and imagination as we tackled the production of planes, guns, tanks and munitions of war.
Let me come to the problem of the temporary house. The first point is that which emerged very clearly from the Minister's statement. Admitting the need for temporary housing, what has been the reason for concentration and publicity on one type of temporary house? One recognises the desirability that the steel industry should make its contribution, but it emerges clearly, and has appeared already to be the case in the Press, that the Minister of Works, I take it in collaboration with the Minister of Health, has apparently given all his attention by getting expert advice, and going into the question of materials, to what is now known as the Portal steel house or bungalow. The Minister of Health was subjected to questions and interruptions on whether there were alternative plans and materials for other kinds of temporary house, but he was obviously not in a position to give the same amount of information with regard to alternative types as he was to the Portal bungalow.


That demonstrated definitely that an undue weight of influence or desire existed in the Department to concentrate upon one type of temporary building.
This is a subject for considerable examination. The only point that the Minister was able to advance firmly, as being a distinct asset to the Portal bungalow, was in regard to the interior fittings and equipment. I observe in the Press also that the publicity campaign has emphasised the internal fittings and equipment of the Portal house. My view is that that is selling what I might almost describe as a poor structure, upon its internal fittings, which are not peculiar to this temporary house. They could be fitted into other houses. I do not pose as an expert, but I certainly have taken the trouble to gather a considerable amount of technical, expert evidence and opinion on this subject and I can claim to be capable, from experience, of assessing whether expert or technical advice is sound or not. I was satisfied from the evidence that I have examined that the interior fittings that had been made so much of in the Portal bungalow are not organically connected with it, and can be adapted and inserted into other types of house or building equally well.

Mr. Willink: May I be allowed to make this point clear? That is exactly the intention. The types we are considering are being considered on the basis that they would include these fittings.

Mr. Barnes: That, at least, has proved that my contention was right, and brings me to the next point that if that was the case, this House would have been better satisfied if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been able to come here to tell us that more than one type of temporary house was being considered into which these fittings could be inserted. It appears to me very regrettable that the Government, in confronting a problem of this urgency, should have concentrated on one design and type of house. I should have thought a better plan would have been for the Government to establish a standard for the temporary house and then have thrown the matter open to the ingenuity and industry of as many industries as possible, with facility to tender for a certain standard of Government temporary house. My view is that if the Govern-

ment had come here with that sort of suggestion, there would have been a much healthier Parliamentary situation.
I come to the structure of the Portal bungalow. The plan is of rectangular design. When we consider the siting of a rectangular bungalow, the provision of roads, the amount of land that it will occupy, and the various services, it again becomes apparent that the matter is not satisfactory from this aspect. I would remind hon. Members that when questions were put to the Minister on this aspect of the problem he had no estimate or idea of the cost that would be incurred by local authorities in planning, and providing sites for, the Portal bungalow. It is quite clear that a rectangular shaped design of this kind adds to the cost of services of that character, and further, when we come to the end of this particular temporary design, and local authorities then have to consider replacing with a permanent type of house on that rectagular site, the service arrangements will not necessarily fit in. I have been advised that the cost of these site services can be increased as much as £75 over and above the normal cost of siting the long narrow type of house as compared with these. I think Parliament is entitled, before we pass this Bill and tie ourselves to any measures of this description, either on the Second Reading or Committee stages, to be thoroughly satisfied on points of this description.
May I pass to the general financial problem involved? The figure given us so far is £150,000,000, which will represent the cost to the Treasury. It is quite clear now that until the negotiations with the local authorities are settled we may not be able to come to a definite figure, but I think it would be the desire of the Members of this House that local authorities should not be saddled with expenditure, certainly not unnecessary expenditure, in dealing with temporary property of this description. With regard to the impact of this initial financial expenditure on the whole housing programme, I understand it is the view of the Ministry of Health that, ultimately, we shall want between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 houses in the next 10 or 12 years, to put it in round figures, which is going to represent an enormous capital expenditure. One anxiety I feel with regard to this preliminary expenditure of £50,000,000 is that the bulk of it appears to be what I might term duplicating costs,


doubling labour costs, doubling material costs for a site that will eventually house only one family.
This is the point with which I am most concerned. I fully appreciate, and here recognise and approve, the Government's policy of licensing these houses, to make them public property so that they are controllable by State policy, and having complete control by a Government Department so that they cannot be interfered with if the desire is to remove them. Whilst we have that safeguard, it is interesting to see the dilemma into which it puts Parliament, and in particular individuals on this side of the House, who place considerable importance on the public ownership of property. We have always had a standard in this country whereby property owned by the State and by the local authorities and public bodies set the standard in quality, design, durability and amenity. Public ownership of property should set a high standard, and we have generally followed that policy hitherto in this country.
I very much regret that at the commencement of the greatest house-building policy this country has ever had to commence, the State is leading the way in establishing a sub-standard house—if you like, deteriorating the quality. I am particularly anxious that, as this policy works out, there shall not grow up in the public mind an attitude of pointing the finger of scorn at the State house, as representing something inferior, something to be the subject of music-hall sneers and jeers, as against property that might be put up through initiative or capital effort in other directions. That is a very serious dilemma. We must have public ownership; we must have public control to see that these properties do not go on, years after they have exhausted their temporary usefulness. But I think there is a particularly grave responsibility on Members of the Government and of this House to see that every safeguard is inserted to wipe away this sub-standard house from the housing of the community, as quickly as possible.
With regard to the problem of the steel house, I want to deal with prices because I am not at all satisfied, until we have further evidence, that the cost of the Portal bungalow has reached its lowest level. The Minister estimates £100 for

service charges; that is not the service of local siting and establishment, that is for transport and other services which the Ministry of Works will have to undertake. There are £100 for the kitchen and other equipment and £400 for the structure or shell, mainly for the provision of steel and doors and equipment of that kind. I am informed that the steel tonnage required for one of these bungalows will be in the neighbourhood of five tons. Is that correct, roughly?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): It is nearer six tons.

Mr. Barnes: I under-estimated rather than over-estimated. That is what I was anxious to do. I am informed that, on present controlled steel prices, the cost of the five tons of steel of the Portal bungalow is £113 15s., that is before the steel sheets go to Briggs and the Oxford Pressed Steel Corporation for pressing and shaping. When this process is gone through, as far as I can see from the working-out of these estimates, it is likely, eventually, to reach a contract price of £177, or to work out at about £35 10s. a ton.
That led me to examine the movement of steel prices in this country during the war, and to look a little into the history of this problem. Before the war we had some difficulty in the steel industry, owing to two companies putting in two large American strip mills. There were innovations and improvements in the steel industry in this country, and these new American strip mills enabled these particular firms to produce this sheet steel at much below the Federation prices. We are all familiar with the difficulty that developed, which ended in Sir William Firth—I do not think that was the only difficulty, it was one aspect of the difficulty at the time —resigning or being removed, and the Bank of England nominees taking charge of one of these companies. I have observed that since then the prices of the products of these concerns have moved steadily forward, until they now conform to the Federation monopoly and control prices.
I think the House ought to look at these figures. Taking 1930 as representing a price of 100, in 1939 iron and steel prices had increased to 128, and now in 1944 they have moved to 183.4. In other


words, iron and steel prices have nearly doubled during that period. For this standard steel sheet that will be required for the Portal bungalow, the price in 1939 at the outbreak of the war was £14 15s. a ton. The price is now £22 15s. a ton. I want to know from the Government spokesmen whether this strip steel is being bought at £22 15s. a ton. I cannot vouch for the next figure that I am going to use, because I have not had time to check it, but I am informed that you can buy this strip steel off the same mills in America at £13 a ton. We all know that labour costs are not lower in America than they are here. Quite apart from that, we are facing a position in which the Government are going to place orders for strip steel at the rate of 1,250,000 tons a year. The output of one of these mills when they were first installed, strangely enough, was 1,250,000 tons a year—I understand that there have been improvements since then. Obviously, the contract that we are going to place will enable one of these mills to run at full, or almost full, capacity. We ought to be satisfied very definitely before we agree to a price of £22 15s. a ton for these steel plates. I cannot say whether the Government have accepted that price or not, but I understand that there is a good deal of evidence to support the belief that they have.
I want to conclude my remarks now, although there are various other matters with which I should like to deal. I want to make this appeal to the Government, and to Members of this House. We have had four years of a Coalition Government, in which we have seen political unity for prosecuting the war. In this Parliament, which has had a rather longer life than we should constitutionally look forward to, I can remember two very definite occasions when the House of Commons has exerted its influence over the Executive with, I think, very beneficial results. Before the war, in September, 1939, when the honour of this country was at stake over Poland, Parliament asserted its authority over the Executive very definitely, and safeguarded that honour. Despite all the sacrifice and suffering that this country and the world have passed through, I do not think that a single Member who took part in that decision would feel that he made a mistake. I believe that, ultimately, the gains to the world

will show that the House of Commons was at one of its best standards of conduct in that memorable week-end. Again, when we passed through our first serious disasters in Norway, the Members of the House of Commons, irrespective of party, dealt with that position, and the present Prime Minister emerged as a result. Again that called forth unexampled responses from the people of this country, when they flocked to the Home Guard and into the munition plants and the Services. It is difficult to visualise any people in the world who, over a period of four years, have put forth such sustained and continuous effort, without grumbling and without any upheaval, but, in my view, it will be a great mistake to expect that that is going to continue. There will come a time, and I believe very shortly, when the great mass of the people of these islands will demand from this Parliament a return for what they have done. I can conceive of nothing in respect of which the demand will be more severe than it will be in respect of the housing of the people. I beg this Parliament, before this Coalition dissolves, to give a final reward for the grand effort of the British people.
Before this Bill passes, I sincerely trust, we shall put into these Debates a clear indication of the fact that we do not favour a patchwork policy in regard to the housing of the people. We may not actually vote against a proposal that will provide shelter for people without shelter. They will be so desperate that they will take anything that will house them. But, for heaven's sake, let us settle down, without wasting another week, or another month, to mobilise to the full the whole resources of the building industry, with all its manifestations, with all its variety, and to bring in other industries that can make a contribution. Let us have steel, by all means, but do not limit it to steel. Do not let us have any monopoly interests exerting their influence on the housing of the people. If the Government will take that kind of firm, but imaginative, approach to the housing of the people, they will have the backing of the House of Commons; but if they muddle this problem, I think they will get a very severe reprimand from all parts of the House.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I would like to ask the hon. Member a question,


and I beg him to believe that I am not asking it frivolously. I understood him to say that one of his objections to the Portal bungalow was that it was rectangular. I do not understand his point. Most houses are rectangular.

Mr. Barnes: But the rectangular frontage, in this case, is sited on to the road, whereas, with other houses, the rectangular frontage is sited away from the road.

Mr. Donald Scott: I wish to welcome the Bill, albeit with rather a guarded welcome, and then to make one or two small criticisms, particularly with regard to its effect on public opinion outside this House. Obviously, the Minister of Health is facing the greatest opportunity that has ever presented itself to do a real job of housing and home-making in this country, and I believe that he can do it if only he gets off on the right foot. It is obvious that recent events in Southern England must upset the calculations as to the total number of houses that will be required after the war, but we know that, besides the houses necessary for the replacement of bombed dwellings, there must be many tens of thousands of people who are looking forward to leaving slum and semi-slum conditions at a not too distant date, and that there must be many more tens of thousands, particularly of young people in the Services, who are looking forward to settling down in homes of their own for the first time. Therefore, I welcome this Bill as an attempt to bridge the gap between the position now and the final rehousing of the whole nation.
The Portal house has come in for a great deal of comment, some of it being flowery, some of it adverse and even unfair, and some of it, certainly, constructive and therefore helpful, but after all, you cannot appeal to everybody. Some people call it the "Portal Palace"; others, with no disrespect for my hon. Friend, call it the "Hicks Hut," and then we are told that we are definitely to call it a bungalow. The Minister of Health did say something about sub-standard bungalows, which I do not think was a good name for his house, but, be that as it may, I think there is a real psychological and important issue here. If 250,000 of this type, or a similar type, of house are

going to be built, then 500,000 adults, at least, are going to be directly affected by them for a certain number of years, and a large number of other people, living in a great many local authority districts, are going to be affected indirectly.
I think it is most unfortunate, if we should let these 500,000 or so unspecified persons start off with any grudge, or with any idea that they are going into houses that are third-rate or that they are being fobbed off with something that is not worth while. Therefore, if the temporary policy of this Bill is going to be a success, I think we have got to have a lot more publicity of the right type—not propaganda, but publicity of explanation, education and explanation. I think we can do that in three ways. First, by setting up specimen houses in as many centres as possible, but that is of limited application. It takes a very long time for comparatively small parties to get through one of the houses. I think it is also possible on the lines which I suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary a few weeks ago, when I proposed that a cinema film could be prepared, with a good commentary, which could be shown at cinemas all over the country, and which would show family life going on in these houses, so that people would know what they were going into. Thirdly, it may be possible to make reasonably large scale models which could be taken from town to town and shown to local housing authorities and the general public.
I believe that we should do something like that, and that, if we did, people would be prepared to make reasonable criticism, and we should get a great volume of useful suggestions, but we should also get rid of what I can only term the type of niggardly criticism that we have had up to the present. As an example of that, I would remind hon. Members of the questionnaire sent round a few months ago by some women's organisation. I remember only two of the questions. The first was, "How do you prevent baby falling into the sitting-room fire in a Portal house?" The obvious answer to that is that it depends on how fond you are of baby, but after all you can buy a fireguard for that just as for any other house. The second question was, "Where, in the Portal house, does father clean his boots?" There the answer, surely, knowing father, is "Just


where he wants to," or, alternatively, "It all depends on mother."

Mr. Gallacher: But supposing he has no boots?

Mr. Scott: Seriously, if the general public are brought to understand more about the houses, and they are told that there are going to be definite safeguards, they will accept them for what they are—not perfection, but a reasonable answer to a very difficult problem. There are just two other matters with which I would like to deal. I hope, when the time comes for the allocation of these houses, that the Government will not be unmindful of the claims of the countryside and the villages, not merely for agricultural workers' dwellings, but for those workers engaged in ancillary trades which we hope are going to play their part in rural development after the war. There will be a great many men coming out of the Forces as skilled mechanics who can find good work in agriculture and the ancillary industries if only accommodation is provided for them in the villages quickly enough.
Lastly, I would like the Minister of Health and his colleagues to examine an alternative form of some temporary house which may already have been considered and turned down. When a site has been prepared and the services laid on, it might be possible to build, first the ground floor of the house—a small three or four roomed house—and top it off with a temporary steel roof similar to that used in the Portal bungalow. Then in three, four or five, or even 10, years' time, but certainly no longer than 10, when the material and labour position allows, and the demands of the increased family call for it, the temporary roof could be discarded and the house built up to the next storey with a permanent roof. All that could be done without wasting any of the original labour or the site or interfering in any way at all with the drains and main services. I am told that that is quite a practicable proposition and I close by asking the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to look into it.

Miss Lloyd George: I think it is apparent that there is very real anxiety in all parts of the House about this Bill. I think most of us feel that, many though the objections are to temporary houses, they are a necessary expedient to tide us over the emergency.

The real anxiety is how long the emergency is going to last. Unfortunately, as we saw last time, temporary houses have an unfortunate habit of becoming permanent, and, as hon. Members know, there are many houses standing. to-day, still inhabited, which are the temporary houses of the last war—over 20 years ago.
Clause 2 of this Bill gives the Minister power to remove these temporary houses, and here are the operative words:
when there is no longer any need for them
or, in the words of the Leader of the House, as used to-day, "as soon as may be." What is that likely to be? The Minister said something about 10 years, and that period of time has been generally accepted. What is the position likely to be at that time? The Minister has told us that, in order to provide every family with a house, that is, apart from slum clearance and overcrowding, it will be necessary to build 1,000,000 new houses. That is the immediate need. The Government are going to build somewhere round 300,000 in the first two years after the war. After that, it is hoped that the rate of building will be accelerated as the labour and materials position becomes easier. Then there will be a resumption of slum clearance and of the amelioration of overcrowding, and this will be going on side by side with the building of these additional homes. In order to meet all these demands the Government contemplate a housing programme, on the Minister's calculations, of between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 in the first 10 or 12 years after the war. That means double the rate of building in the period between the two wars when 4,000,000 houses were built in 20 years. There we have the problem. It is an immense task in the difficult situation which will have to be met after the war. I do not think it is insuperable if materials and labour are properly organised.
What is likely to happen to these temporary houses in face of the enormous building programme that has to be achieved? Is it not really likely that local authorities, with all their manifold responsibilities and duties, will extend the life of these houses? Of course they will. Is it not also more than likely that the Minister of the day, whoever he may be, will have to acquiesce in the life of these houses being extended? That is certain,


and why not? The houses are there. They provide accommodation and shelter, and have very good kitchen gadgets and labour saving devices. They are dry. They are not unfit houses which can be condemned even after 10 years. Is there any guarantee that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time these houses will not come to be regarded as permanent houses? That seems to be the real danger, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said earlier in the Debate. Assuming that that is the case and we have to make up our minds to the fact that these houses will become permanent, is it not, therefore, absolutely vital that we should see to it that the standard of these houses is going to be very much higher than that of the Portal house? I regard the Portal house as definitely sub-standard.
I was a member of the Dudley Committee, which issued its report only a few weeks ago, and I would like to say a little on that. Although improvements have been made in the Portal house—and in this matter the Government have shown initiative, resource and imagination—notwithstanding the improvements which have been made, it has very grave defects. First of all, it is too small—six hundred and sixteen square feet against the 900 square feet which the Dudley Committee regard as a minimum. There is another very important point, particularly important in a steel house, and that is the height of the rooms. Another improvement has been made in that respect. It is now to be 7 feet 6 inches as against the 8 feet recommended by the Dudley Committee. The Dudley Committee was urged to reduce the height of rooms, but, after carefully considering the whole of the factors, definitely came to the conclusion that it would militate against health if the height of the rooms were lowered below the 8 feet. That I regard as very important. There are only two bedrooms in the Portal house. We are told that the houses are only meant for small families. There is no guarantee that families will remain small. In fact it is hoped they will not.
It is the policy of the Government to encourage larger families, and yet here they are proposing to build, in great numbers, a house with only two bedrooms. What is to happen? Are the families, as they increase, to be turned out and given other accommodation? Is there to be a sort of general post every

time there is an addition to the family, or are the people to be allowed to remain in these houses and create new slums and overcrowded conditions? I am very glad to hear that the Minister is considering at the moment more than one design, and that he is not completely tied.

Mr. Willink: The Minister of Works.

Miss Lloyd George: The dilution of labour as between the two Ministries rather complicates matters. Here is another example of it. I understand new designs are to be considered. I hope that among them designs for larger houses, for the family house, not neglecting the present design which might be used by old age pensioners and others. There is another question I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works. I understand that there is a new Weir house. I am told that it is an admirable house, that it is larger than the Portal house and has very good accommodation, and I am informed the cost of it is very much greater. It is a permanent house. It has the advantage at any rate of not being a semipermanent house. I believe the difficulty there is a shortage of materials. I find it very difficult to understand what that means and shall be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what particular material is in short supply and makes it difficult to provide such a house.
We come in this Bill, as we come in all housing Bills, to the question of land and the matter of planning or lack of planning in Government housing, which becomes more and more apparent as each proposal comes out in what I would call the instalment system. The sub-Committee on temporary construction which reported the other day says:
It is therefore clear that in general the temporary scheme will necessitate the acquisition by local authorities of large areas of land for housing purposes and an early decision on the main lines of future planning policy, combined with more expeditious powers for acquiring land for housing, becomes more than ever necessary.
That is the view of a Committee which has been studying this matter for some time. In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill we are told that local authorities
will find suitable sites on land belonging to them or to be purchased by them under the Housing Acts.
The Minister referred to land local authorities had already purchased. That land is


presumably land which has been earmarked for new building and there is some plan attached to it. Is it suggested that the land should be used for temporary housing? That surely is going to add to the general confusion. It is going to hold up the programme of the building of permanent homes. I cannot see how it can fail to do so. The real danger here is that the best sites are likely to be taken up by the temporary housing. That is a very serious matter. There is one other question I would like to ask the Minister and it is this: whether he will consider giving additional power to local authorities to requisition land in certain circumstances for the building of these houses for this purpose? It is a point that I would like him to consider.
I would ask the Minister to see to it that the countryside gets a fair share of these houses. As is well known in the House, there is a very real shortage of accommodation in the rural areas which will not and cannot be met by the very limited provision of new housing. After all, I think we are agreed in this House that we do not want to make the mistake of seeing young people, in the first few years after the war, drifting once again into the towns for lack of accommodation in the countryside. I beg the Government, therefore, to see that the countryside is not neglected. In view of all these serious factors, I hope that before the resumption of this Debate the Government will reconsider many of these factors in connection with this Measure for temporary housing.

Sir Jonah Walker-Smith: If time permitted, I would be very pleased to traverse the admirable speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd-George) and in doing so I should make appreciative references to many of the helpful suggestions and constructive proposals she has submitted to the House. There are, however, just two to which I may permit myself to refer. First, I think she has done a great service in reminding the House that the word "temporary" is purely relative. Although the particular houses contemplated under the provisions of this Bill will be earmarked as temporary, it is extremely likely that they may endure for many many years. I have painful recollections of causing to be erected on behalf of a Government

Department during the last war a number of houses in Scotland, which were intended to be of the most temporary possible character; they were intended to endure for 12 months but, unfortunately, they remained there for well over 20 years. I think the House should bear that in mind.
The hon. Lady referred to the superficial area of these bungalows, which was laid down by the Dudley Committee as 900 square feet. I have not read that report, but it confirms the conclusions reached by a Government Committee upon which I served about 25 years ago, when we laid down the same figure and it was accepted by the Government as the irreducible minimum. Now, here is a proposal to crowd the whole domestic activities of a household into 600 superficial feet. I myself have caused to be designed many houses, including many domestic offices. In the last two or three years I have done many domestic duties in domestic offices considerably larger than those which I had previously designed. Therefore, I speak from practical and painful experience when I say it is a criminal shame——

Mr. Bartle Bull: Apart from the fact that we cannot hear the hon. Gentleman, is he entitled to speak in the Gangway?

Sir J. Walker-Smith: I wholly accept the rebuke and I apologise. I think it is a criminal shame to cause members of working-class households to do the whole of their domestic drudgery in such confined space as is provided in these temporary houses.
I feel quite sure that the House will have felt, as I felt, a considerable measure of relief at the announcement on behalf of the Government that the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill will not conclude to-day. Having heard the lucid explanation given by the Minister of Health, and having listened to some of the revelations he made during that explanation, I sincerely hope that the Bill will never receive a Second Reading unless it is substantially qualified. The object of the Bill, for the rapid provision of houses, is admirable. Whether or not it is necessary, in order to secure the necessary houses in the requisite time, to have temporary houses and sub-standard houses is an entirely different question. I do not


propose further to criticise the details of the prototype or model house, which it is proposed to provide in such vast numbers under the provisions of this Bill, but I would like to comment on the somewhat disconcerting revelations of the Minister of Health in regard to the arrangements that have been carried a very long way in regard to the provision of these houses.
It astonished me, and I think it astonished the House, to find that the Minister of Works had divided the units of his house into five inner parts, and that he carried his negotiations with those who were to provide these particular five units in vast numbers a very long way, before this Bill came before the House. The Minister of Health proceeded to give us actual names of the contractors to whom enormous orders were to be placed for these particular units, and I was gravely astonished to find that such a thing could be possible. When the Minister appreciated the feeling of the House in regard to those revelations, he attempted to relieve the tension of mind of hon. Members by saying, "Ah, yes, but these orders are to be placed with Government contractors." Their appetite grows with eating, and having already created an enormous appetite we propose now to feed that voracious appetite with peace-time production. I do not think that brought very much measure of relief to the minds of most of us; it certainly brought none to me. Then he proceeded to say, "Ah, yes, there will be a costing clause." No one knows better than the Minister of Health, with his vast knowledge of contract matters, that the costing clause means extremely little. What means an enormous lot are the conditions of contract. If those conditions are made very favourable indeed to the contractor, all that the operation of the costing clause would do would be to reveal the fact that the very remunerative result of the contract with which it was concerned had been duly and properly fulfilled. That does not carry the slightest measure of relief to my mind, and I hope we shall hear some more satisfactory information as to what is being done in regard to placing these contracts for these enormous sums of money before this Bill is approved. Having spent a very large part of my life to raising the standards of the houses of the people both in England and Scotland——

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member has not had much success in Scotland.

Sir J. Walker-Smith: I have been going in the right direction anyway, in regard to construction, accommodation and design. I cannot claim that I have any very great feeling of enthusiasm for a retrograde Measure of this kind. The particular type of house which we are to expect has now been reasonably well defined. It is to be temporary and substandard. I do not suppose that even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works would claim that there is any particular or special virtue in temporary character or in sub-standard quality. The only possible justification for these temporary and sub-standard houses would be that standard houses could not be provided with the same economy of labour and within a reasonable period of time. That assumption is thoroughly unjustified and unjustifiable. If the Minister of Works, or the Minister of Health, could have found it convenient to have taken into consultation the various accredited organisations of the building industry—and especially the National Federation of Building Operatives—those bodies would have given them very considerable assistance by way of advice, and would have indicated to the Ministers and measures by which equal acceleration and equal application of these methods of mass production, and the application of the principle of prefabrication, could have been applied to the production of thoroughly good standard houses. I sincerely hope that that omission may be rectified.
Just as under this arrangement there is no economy in labour, so there is no economy in costs. The consideration of two or three figures will, I think, satisfy the House on that point. The house is intended to cost £600, and is to endure for a period of ten years. That is £60 per annum. To build a standard house, much larger than this, perhaps almost half as large again in superficial area, would cost about £700, which would be spread over a period of at least 40 years. Therefore, the loss per annum on each temporary house would be £42. Multiply that by ten and you have £420. There are to be built 250,000, which means that there is a loss of £105,000,000, so that there is no economy in labour or money. The Minister of Works is to be permitted to spend £150,000,000 entirely within his


own discretion and it is to be the duty of the Minister of Health to unload these houses on to local authorities. I know that, rightly and properly, the Minister of Health has enormous power and great influence over the local authorities, but I think it regrettable that that influence and power should be used for the purpose of unloading this enormous number of substandard houses on to local authorities.
To these few helpful observations—[Laughter]—I would like to add a few further observations—dare I use the epithet "helpful" again?—with regard to the provisions of the Bill itself. The Minister revealed the arrangement which has been made between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works, and what is to be done with regard to the placing of orders for the manufacture of these houses. I would be glad if the Minister could tell us what is to be done in regard to the arrangements for the erection of these houses. Is it, again, to be the policy of the Government that the Ministry of Works is to have another selected band of favoured large contractors who, like the large contractors who are to produce the houses, will be sent round the country erecting the houses on behalf of the Ministry of Health—which will mean that local builders and labour will suffer? I should be glad to have some information about that, because local builders throughout the country are thoroughly unsettled by the adoption of the policy I have described in regard to the preparation of sites for these housing schemes. The Minister has told us that the Minister of Works is not confined to one particular type or method of construction, and we shall await with great interest the further types and methods which he proposes.
There are other matters which I hope will be dealt with on the Committee stage, but with regard to Clause 7, containing the financial provisions, the Minister of Works is to have full and unfettered discretion to spend this £150,000,000 in any way he likes, and the Minister of Health will be required to unload houses on to the local authorities, and make with them the best terms he can. He is to get rid to the local authorities of whatever number of houses the Minister of Works will have thought it fit and proper to provide. I am anxious to know whether it is possible that the purchasing activities of the Minister of Works can be

controlled by the Minister of Health. That is to say, can the Minister of Works be restricted to the particular number of houses which the local authorities had previously consented with the Minister of Health, to take? The Minister of Works should not produce an enormous number of houses at high cost and then let the Minister of Health have the unpleasant duty, by various means in his power, of unloading them on local authorities. I am not sufficiently optimistic to think that I shall get a reply to all these points, but I hope they will be taken into consideration when the Minister further confers with the local authorities.

Mr. Willink: I think my hon. Friend must learn something about the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. I have no intention of exerting pressure of the kind he suggests on the Ministry of Works, and the picture he paints of unloading these structures——

Mr. Speaker: I think it is a mistake to answer every speaker in this way. This is a Second Reading Debate.

Sir J. Walker-Smith: I was saying that I hope the Minister would consider the points I have raised, and I was about to ask if he could find it convenient to arrange for a meeting with accredited representatives of the building industry in order that they might have an opportunity of giving him that large measure of assistance which, I am sure, most of them can give, and with the National Federation of Building Operatives in particular?

Mr. Silkin: I think most Members will agree that, in the solution of this urgent problem, the normal means of production of houses will not suffice, and that the House is ready to consider any means of supplementing the supply of normal houses which will be satisfactory on its merits. I take it that we are considering, on their merits, the proposals of the Government to supply a large number of Portal houses. I am quite prepared to discuss this question on the merits of the Portal house. I am going to submit that the Portal house is not a satisfactory solution of this problem. If it were, I, for one, should not in any way impede its production. The Minister agreed that it was sub-standard in two respects. It is sub-standard in a large number of respects, and I will mention a few that he omitted to refer to. In


the first place, both bedrooms lead out of either the living room or the kitchen. To get to one, you have to go into the living room, then into the kitchen and then into the bedroom. In order to go into the second, you go from the living room into the bedroom. All housing opinion will condemn leading into bedrooms out of kitchens. Moreover, the living room, of about 145 feet, has three doors in it, one leading into the hall, one into the kitchen and one into a bedroom. Obviously there must be draughts coming from these various doors. Then the house will suffer from condensation, from noise and from excessive heat in the summer.
I recognise that the Ministry of Works have done all they can in the way of research to ensure that these dangers will not emerge, but it is one thing to try these things out on a laboratory scale and quite another to try them out in practice. Some of us have had experience of steel houses erected shortly after the last war, where all these evils continue to the present day. In my view, the only way of ensuring that this house does not suffer from these defects will be for someone to live in one of them for a certain period. I submit that the house will not stand up to rough weather. It may not outlast the ten years, especially if there are young, healthy children in it. As to the height of the rooms, that is a defect, particularly in congested areas, and I imagine that the majority of the houses will be built in congested areas. A height of 7 ft. 6 ins. in the country is all right, but in towns it is bad. In London the minimum height is 8 ft. 6 ins. Then there is a real danger of warping and, where that happens, the cost of repair will be enormous. It will mean substituting the warped part by a new part. I take it that the vast majority of these houses will be of the two-bedroom type. No other types are at present available. The prospect of anything like 250,000 of these houses, all alike, scattered all over the country, fills me with horror. Another point that ought to be mentioned is the danger of vermin. It is a grave danger in London and many large towns. I am advised on high authority that these houses are peculiarly susceptible to vermin.

Mr. Willink: It was to that matter that I referred, more delicately, when I mentioned consultation with the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Silkin: The life of these houses is to be ten years. It is possible that they may not last much longer but the intention of the Minister is that they should last much longer, because he said that until he could replace them with something more satisfactory they would remain. In my submission the housing problem will not be solved in the next 25 years. I do not for a moment admit that the 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 houses that the right hon. Gentleman referred to really represents the number that are needed. I should place it at double that figure. One must contemplate the probability that these houses will be required to stand up for 20 to 25 years. They will provide for a limited type of family. It has been mentioned that we do not wish to limit families to two children, and consequently there will be a need for further accommodation. I do not know whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention that as soon as a family goes beyond two children, they should be forced to leave the temporary house and take a permanent one. A permanent house may not be available. Local authorities will be busy providing permanent accommodation for other families and may not have it available when families go beyond the stage of two children. So, while we shall cater for the small family with the Portal house, larger families will be catered for in the main by permanent houses and, since the need for housing the larger families is at least as acute as the need for housing smaller families, we must do nothing in this policy of building Portal houses which will interfere with the production of permanent houses.
I want to ask the House to consider whether this interferes with the building of permanent houses. Where are you going to put these houses? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to blitzed areas, and that is where the need will be greatest, because of the destruction that has taken place. Is he going to recommend that these houses should be put on blitzed sites? If so, I would put to him that these houses, by reason of their construction of one storey instead of the normal two, would take up twice as much space as the ordinary house. That is confirmed by the frontage of the house, which is 34 feet 6 inches, against the normal frontage of 16 to 20 feet. As these houses cannot be put close together and do not lend themselves to


terracing, but will have to be separated by some yards of air space and light, it follows that not more than half the number of houses can be put on a site as compared with permanent houses.
That is the position in most towns, but in London the position is even worse. Whereas you could get about nine houses an acre of the temporary type in London, the solution must be the erection of flats. As against nine houses of the temporary type you could provide perhaps 40 or 45 flats. Therefore, in a large town, where the solution is largely flats, if the local authority used their sites for putting up Portal houses they would be wasting the sites not only for Io years, but for the longer period which both my right hon. Friend and I contemplate will be necessary. What, then, are we to do in the large towns? Are we to build outside? Supposing London had its fair share of the 250,000 of these houses, it would have about 25,000. On the basis of the density I have indicated, they would need about 3,000 acres of land. That is just an impossible figure to contemplate for London. One jumps at the chance of five or Io acres; 100 acres is unthought of; 3,000 acres is just impossible.

Mr. Willink: Does my hon. Friend mean within the administrative county?

Mr. Silkin: I mean outside, within a reasonable distance. To get 3,000 acres within a reasonable distance of London is unthinkable. Would my right hon. Friend suggest that we should buy 3,000 acres on the outskirts of London for these temporary houses? I submit that this problem will arise in other places as well as London. Even where they would be normally building houses and flats, they would still be faced with the problem whether, in the long run, in the five year period, it would not be better to use their sites fully by putting up permanent dwellings instead of having only half the number of temporary dwellings. That is the problem that every local authority will have to face, and, in my view, the answer in most cases will be that they would prefer to use their sites to the fullest extent even though it might mean waiting. I submit that it will not mean waiting if we adopt the policy that my hon. Friend has suggested. Even if it meant waiting, better use would be made of the land in the long run and we should get more houses than by putting up the Portal houses.
The case for this house is that it can be put up quickly. Is that really the case? The crisis will be within the first year after the war with Germany ends. People will be wanting homes and will be pressing and urging that homes should be provided. It is just within that period when no homes will be provided. It will take from six to nine months to jig and tool before we even begin to manufacture. I submit that it will take longer if the experience of production during the war is any guide. After all, we shall still be at war. I submit that it may well be 18 months to two years before we turn out these houses on any scale at all. If that is the case, many people will be gravely disappointed. Is the Minister satisfied that there is an adequate supply of pressed steel capacity in this country? These houses will mean an enormous quantity of pressed steel. If we divert all our production of pressed steel for the temporary houses we may get what we want. Is it desirable, however, to divert the whole of our production of pressed steel for this purpose? It is used for the manufacture of motor cars. If it were a choice between houses and motor cars, every Member would plump for houses, but we cannot close our eyes to the vital importance to this country of the production of motor cars from the point of view of providing work and of our export trade. Have we an adequate supply of plywood, which is an essential feature of the temporary house? If we are to provide the houses quickly we must have the land. Is my right hon. Friend giving local authorities the same powers to speed up the acquisition of land for the temporary houses as will be available to them under the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Bill which is now before the Lords?

Mr. Willink: The terms will be the same. This land will be treated as land for houses.

Mr. Silkin: Another advantage which is claimed for the temporary house is that it will not require much building labour. Is that really the case? The house has to be painted, and painters will therefore be required. The wall is lined with plywood, and that will require a type of building labour. The floors are of wood, and that will require a particular type of building labour. The same type of plumber will be required for the temporary house as for the permanent house.


The fittings such as the baths, taps and kitchen arrangements in the temporary house are excellent, and I hope they will be adopted for the permanent houses. If they are, the labour required will be the same. The saving is really in the walls and roof and a certain amount of foundation. Is it really worth while, for the sake of that amount of saving, to put up a temporary house which will last only a limited period and will then have to be dismantled? If the Government are merely out to save on the walls and roofs is there not a better way of solving this problem? Has it been considered? My right hon. Friend is going to collect the pieces when the house is dismantled. Will they be of any use to him? I have had some experience of collecting odd bits from houses in the course of my chairmanship of the London County Council Housing Committee and we have never found it a profitable undertaking. I do not think my right hon. Friend will either. I beg him to think once more whether there is not a better way by providing permanent houses of permanent standard, but with temporary finishings, temporary walls and temporary roof, which can be converted at some time at leisure, but which will in the end give a permanent house to live in.
Now a word about the finance. I accept the figure of £600 for the house. On top of that will be land, roads and sewers. I have made a calculation which I have had checked and it shows that the economic rent of such a house outside London would be £95 a year and inside London, if we used one of the bombed sites, the economic rent would be £135 a year.

Mr. Buchanan: Without rates?

Mr. Silkin: No, it includes rates. I am willing to show my figures to my right hon. and learned Friend, so that he can also have them checked.

Sir Joseph Nall: Has the hon. Member included a Io-year sinking fund on the £600?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, I think that must be done. What rent is to be charged for these houses? If it is to be, say 15s., there will be an enormous amount to be made up by somebody. I am very much afraid that if we spend too much money on these temporary houses that fact will

be used later on, possibly in times of financial stringency, as an argument for slowing down on the permanent houses. Inevitably, this enormous expenditure is bound to have that effect. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to use the interval between now and the end of the Recess profitably. Do not let him accept this proposal as the last word. If it were the last word, I should be in some difficulty. I do not believe that it is the last word, and I believe that if my right hon. and learned Friend is energetic and does not take things for granted from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, if he can evolve something better, I can promise him that he will earn the gratitude of the whole House and its support for the Second Reading of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I am sure that we are all very grateful for the extensive and enlightened criticism to which we have listened, after my right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Second Reading of the Bill. I am satisfied that there are a number of other points of view that will enrich us in our further examination of this problem, and we shall be very happy to receive them. At the commencement I would point out that the Bill should not be confused with the Government's normal housing policy. It is very wrong to regard this as the Government's normal housing policy. The Minister of Health has stated very definitely and clearly on more than one occasion that that policy should be for the more permanent type of housebuilding, making provision to build houses on the more established lines of brick, stone, etc.—whatever those etceteras might be.
I shall be coming in a moment to many of the questions which have been asked, but first I would ask hon. Members to indicate what type of material they think temporary houses should be built of. What type of material are we to consider with a view to designing and planning another type of house, instead of the one which is indicated in the Bill? The Bill asks for the type of house which we hope to make available, a factory-made house, as an emergency dwelling, in which to house thousands of British citizens. It is intended to fill an interregnum, to bridge over a gap, between the end of hostilities with Germany and such time as the build-


ing industry can regain its stride and be equal to the task of meeting our housing requirements in the more traditional way. I shall be compelled to ask, when the hard, harsh facts relating to the figures of labour and materials are available, that hon. Members who are not inclined to accept this proposal—and perhaps they are right, but that will be proved in the discussion and in the Division later on—how they would propose to build.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker-Smith) while he told me what to do. He revealed quite a lot about costing. I have been sitting round a table with him for 20 years, and he never told me how they got on with those things, but I had a shrewd idea. We have invited suggestions from the building employers and building operatives at all times. We have usually had to provide the agenda at the meetings. Where is the proposal of the building trade employers and operatives that would help my Minister to fulfil this request of the Government to provide temporary houses? I should like to know. I will give the House some figures later as to the number of men and the amount of materials that are available.
What are the real facts, apart from the emotions and prejudices in hon. Members' minds? I yield to none in defending the highest possible standard of housing. I have spent 40 years with that ambition, and in my public life, sitting with the party opposite for many years, I have always urged the claims of high standard housing. I have done my very best on all occasions to urge the improvement of the standard.

Mr. Buchanan: Yet the hon. Member proposes the steel house.

Mr. Hicks: I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) for the excellent way in which he opened the Debate. I could enthusiastically subscribe to all the things that he asked me for, but I regard the proposed scheme not as permanent but as temporary. We must get on with the job as quickly as we possibly can to provide permanent homes. With all the enthusiasm which I am capable of summoning to my aid I believe that the Government will be happy to do that, but we are faced at the present moment with the

problem of providing some accommodation between the end of hostilities and the period when the normal building trade is able to get into its stride and build houses. My right hon. and learned Friend has stated that, in his opinion—and it is my opinion too—to build 100,000 houses in the first year will take 100,000 building trade operatives; that is, of course, building in the traditional style. At the present time the industry is in the position of having to employ people who are not too familiar with this type of work, and a number of contractors are not so specialised on house building as they were before the war.
Before the war a number of big contractors really specialised in house building. They knew exactly how to get out the foundations and how much concrete would be required, the number of bricks, the length of the floor joists, the length of the boards, the length of the rafters and the number of locks and doors they would have to put in. It was all worked upon a mass production scale and houses were built in succession one after another. Those contractors reached a higher output than one man per house per year. I am definitely satisfied that we must not deceive ourselves, and that in the very first year it will require 100,000 men to build 100,000 houses. My right hon. and learned Friend is asking that we should accept that as his contribution—not as a solution. It is something that should be accepted. The figure of 200,000 houses that he is proposing to start to build in the second year must be appreciated from the aspect of the size of the labour force that will be required to tackle that problem.
Instead of confusing the House generally with talk of my own Minister's attempts to provide some form of shelter, in the shape of a temporary house, let me ask hon. Members to realise how long it will take, at the end of the European war, for the building trade to get back into its normal stride again. No one wants to prevent permanent houses being built to the maximum with the amount of labour and materials available. With the maximum amount of factory production, the industry will be able to go on and do this work. The hon. Member for East Ham South asked me a number of questions. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not answer them all, because it might keep


us here too late. He will have to be patient with me, as I may not answer them as meticulously as I should like to. He asked me whether we favoured a make-shift house. I reply that neither I nor the Government want a make-shift house.
Sheer, hard, stern necessity has conditioned this proposal to tide over a period. The problem will be grave after the war. We have had a cessation of normal housebuilding for five years. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South asked why we concentrated on one kind. Who has come forward with a house of comparable quality? My Ministry is constantly open. Anyone has access to it who has ideas. About 50 or 60 people have put up proposals for housing to meet the need for temporary houses, but at the moment they have not stood up to the requirements. Some are going along fairly well. I ask hon. Members not to ask me to mention names of those which are going along fairly well, because others who are not mentioned may think credit is being accorded against them. They can bring forward proposals which can be sent to the Watford Research Station if they can meet our requirements for loading capacity, for thermal insulation and so forth, and provide other necessities. Let anyone with ideas come along.
The hon. Member said that Parliament has exerted its influence. It is doing so now. Parliament did so when it said that we would guarantee to the building industry after the war not the same haphazard experience as after the last war but a ten to 12 years' programme. We had hoped to be able to overhaul the arrears of maintenance in the first two years after the war, but the labour forces will be so depleted that it may not be possible to do it to anything like the extent we should like. Consequently, the Government are here exercising their influence in favour of a very definite policy of house building in order that the people may be better housed. I agree with my hon. Friend's general exhortation and I thank him for what he had to say. I would like also to thank the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. D. Scott) for his sympathetic approach to this difficult problem. It is a difficult problem to settle. Everyone who speaks can aid us with their respective experience, many of

them on their local councils; and there are many who, without being on local councils are deeply concerned about and have familiarised themselves with many aspects of housing. That is all to the good. They have informed the House and helped us, and we appreciate that profoundly. The hon. Member asked whether we could build one floor, come back and take off the roof, build another floor and put it back again. We will consider that, but it is bound to cost a lot more money if we put on a temporary roof, move the labour and then start building again.
The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) said there were many objections to temporary houses, and asked how long a temporary house was to last. I do not know. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health does not know. All we can say is the Bill provides that no money shall be spent on the provision of these houses after October, 1947. That limits the amount the Government can spend. I think they will last their ten years. With all houses much depends on the wear and tear; experience with ordinary houses shows we must have some regard to that. Plenty of new houses have been turned into slums—houses built under the Acts before the war. It is not merely a question of the type of house, but of how the house is treated, whether it becomes an unfavourable abode or a good one. I subscribe very definitely to the point made by the hon. Lady about many of the houses built after the last war. That is what we are trying to avoid. What did my Noble Friend say about this question when he raised it? That we would try to get them publicly owned. Is there anything more than that the hon. Lady would like? The houses to which she referred are privately owned. They are not municipally owned, so far as I know, nor are they under central control. Instead of having much temporary accommodation below standard owned privately, this time it will be under public control and subject to public criticism and public decision. Surely we cannot do better than have this kind of property under public control. The property to which the hon. Lady referred is all privately owned and unfortunately it has provided us with many places of a character we do not like.

Sir J. Nall: Does that mean it would be an excuse for knocking the houses down


before people have some other place in which to live?

Mr. Hicks: I do not know how to answer that. I am sure the hon. Member wishes to be helpful, but there will be very great difficulty with regard to housing accommodation after the war. For example, when a soldier or a sailor comes back will he prefer to have one room in another man's house or have his own home? This Bill is not intended for the rehousing of the industrial population but as a contribution, as supplementary aid, in order that those who come back from the Forces may have a home during a difficult period.

Earl Winterton: How can anybody tell the number of houses that may be required—I am supporting the hon. Gentleman—when we do not know what enemy action is going to be? There may be thousands of people, millions without a house before the end of November.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman giving it out now that none of the soldiers who come back will have to live in a room sub-let by somebody else?

Mr. Hicks: I cannot give any guarantee of that. We are hoping with these temporary houses to meet the difficulty of a very large number of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) asked me how many would be built and whether they would be erected under the local authorities. Surely the procedure in that matter is as clear as the noonday sun. The Minister of Health has to consult with the local authorities. When the local authority orders the houses the Minister gives instructions to the Minister of Works, who then puts them into production, and no more will be produced than are asked for.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Where a local authority that takes a real dislike to the scheme, does not understand it, and decides not to erect any houses, and there may be 2,000 soldiers returning who have no homes and no chance of getting a home, will the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Works take any action and build Portal houses in that particular area in such circumstances?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) that the house will not be as hypothetical as his question. The hon. Lady asked about the Dudley Committee. I was a member of the Dudley Committee for many years, until I accepted office in the Government, and I commend the great work that the people of that Committee have done. In the main these houses do not come up to the standards that the Committee require. We welcome those standards enthusiastically, but this is a temporary house.

Mr. Gallacher: We shall get the "duds" before the Dudleys.

Mr. Hicks: The hon. Lady has mentioned the Weir house. The Weir house is not a temporary house but a permanent house. It requires about 15 tons of steel, as against 5.75 tons for the Portal house. Negotiations are going on with the firm of Weirs, and with the trade union representatives, on the general conditions under which they will be erected. The hon. Lady will remember that, on the last occasion, there was quite a lot of difficulty about the type of labour to be employed in this direction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland tells me that discussions are going on very well, and that, as soon as a decision is reached, he will be able to give a direction to go on building steel houses of a permanent character. I am not expressing an opinion about that—hon. Members know the profession in which I was brought up. The hon. Member for Barrow has earned our thanks, I am sure, for his contribution. There is only one point of his to which I want to refer. He said that this house is likely to cost £600, and that a full-standard house would cost about £700. The Post Office is open, and I am sure that my Noble Friend will be very happy to be told how he can build a house for that figure. There is quite a difference between discussing the matter here and making suggestions and getting them carried out by the industry. When it comes to putting them out to tender, the results are not equal to the enthusiasm of the advocates of that method. The jerry-built houses that were put up were not built by the Government.

An Hon. Member: They were mostly by local authorities.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hicks: The hon. Member for Peckham says that the normal methods of providing housing accommodation will not suffice. He discussed the house on its merits, and I thank him for the very temperate approach that he made to this problem, because we can all criticise very extensively. An entrance to the bedrooms from one of the other rooms is not, I believe, common in ordinary working-class houses, although it is in flats. The question of the alteration of materials and design will be seriously considered, I can assure him, and it may be that a passage will be put in to cut off the living room from the bedroom. Whether that would improve the amenities of the place or not I do not know. My Noble Friend has considered a lot of suggestions for alterations to the house. First, he had a model made in timber, which was exhibited in the Tate Gallery. Then he had a prototype made in steel. That was all made by hand, and, therefore, it would not be so accurate as if it had been stamped out by presses. The fittings and the rooms, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has stated, were inspected by well over 30,000 people, who went through the houses, and the houses are standing up well.
One of my hon. Friends said that it would be a very good thing if someone had to live in this house, and somebody else suggested that I should do so. I can assure them that we have had people living in the house for some time—people who have been bombed out. My Ministry approached a borough council in London, and asked them to find a bombed-out man and his wife who would live in the house. I have been round to see the lady and her husband, and have had a talk with them about the amenities of the house. I inquired about all these terrible stories—that one could hear every little spot of rain, and that it would be very cold or very hot, and so on. The qualities of the house have been indicated by me very often in answer to Questions and in speeches. The lady told me that she is comfortable in the house—and she previously lived, not in a sub-standard house, but in a house of four bedrooms. She has lived in this house with her husband, and they have had her brother-in-law and his wife with them. They lived there, and did their cooking there, and they say that they have been quite com-

fortable. They have asked that certain alterations should be made.
They have not seen the alterations which my noble Friend decided to undertake—to raise the height of the ceiling, to alter the size of the bathroom, to arrange other lavatory accommodation, and to increase the size of the hall, with a loggia on the outside—but when she went to look at these alterations, with the other things we have indicated, she said that she was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements, and that it made quite a comfortable house. We have been advised, by the greatest people we have been able to consult on the thermal and other qualities of the house, that this Wall of steel, with a backing behind it of slag-wool or aluminium foil, is equivalent to an II-inch wall. We are told that the insulation quality of this house is equivalent to that of a brick house with such a wall thickness. How can we refute such evidence, when it has been subjected to all the tests of our physical laboratories and our special research stations and when Dr. Stradling has given us such a guarantee?

Sir P. Hannon: Did my hon. friend take any consensus of opinion from the 30,000 people who have passed through these two houses as to the merits of one house against the other?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, we had representatives there taking down comments from everyone who had any to make about the house. About 18 to 20 per cent. of the people who visited the houses had some comment to make. About 80 per cent. had no comment at all. We have not been able to invite everyone who went into the first house to go into the prototype, but a number have visited both, and they have expressed themselves as being quite happy about it. I am one of those people who like an eight feet or nine feet ceiling, but I am told that in this 7ft. bins. ceiling, with the windows high up and ventilation at the top, there is no reason for bad air under the ceiling. We are told that this is a perfectly healthy room.
I am sorry that I have not got on to my speech, but, perhaps I ought not to go too far now. I would like to say one or two words about the size of the building industry, as I promised earlier. In the building industry, the numbers we had prior to the war were, roughly, about


1,008,000. With the demands made upon the building industry since the war, either by munition factories or the Services, and allowing for those who have "joined the great majority," the number has been reduced, certainly, to below 380,000.

Mr. Grenfell: The 1,008,000 consisted of skilled and unskilled?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, and the 380,000 includes the same. This is the global number in the building industry. It is anticipated, after much examination, not only by my Department, but by other Government Departments, that the numbers available in the building industry immediately on the termination of hostilities, and when other demands of the country have been met, will be just over 300,000, of whom only 50,000 will be under 41 years of age. When I mention the advancing age of the men remaining in the industry, and the number of youths coming in, the House will see what I am referring to and will note the make-up of the labour force after the war. We calculated this very seriously; it was not taken lightly. My Minister is not a man to take anything lightly; he is very anxious to have everything proved from the top to the bottom, and he persists with it with a meticulous enthusiasm that is very irritating to some of the people he interrogates from time to time. We believe, taking an optimistic sort of figure—not too optimistic, but just favourable to our side—it will take us two years after the end of hostilities with Germany to build up the labour force in the building industry to 800,000.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the Government continue to build up the labour force in the engineering and other skilled industries?

Mr. Hicks: I should say it will. Judging by the number of men able to get back to the industry from munitions and through demobilisation, it is anticipated that, at the end of two years after the war, we will get up to about 800,000 men. After the war, we will also have to deal with the maintenance work which has been left over for five years. Maintenance labour alone in the building industry prior to the war required just over 300,000 men—that is, men permanently employed upon maintenance. That will be our total labour force, and when the Minister of

Health states that he will agree to take 100,000 for building it is a very creditable gesture.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of the lads now in the Forces are not only knocking down buildings but are also engaged in reconstruction and maintenance work in different parts of the war, and will they not all be ready for this work?

Mr. Hicks: We will accept all the men coming back and welcome them with open arms.

Mr. Gallacher: Then why will it take two years to get 800,000?

Mr. Hicks: It will take two years because of general demobilisation. It cannot be done as easily as the hon. Member suggests. We will have to deal with years' arrears after the war, and with the rehabilitation of factories and the repair of requisitioned houses, etc. There is still a great deal to be done, and in applying the forces in the country to house-building it must be remembered that there will he other work to be done in order to balance things.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister taking any account of the possibility of immigration and the advent of foreign workers?

Mr. Hicks: We have not taken that matter into consideration but we will welcome them if they like to come here. To come back to a point made earlier, and in reply to the hon. Member who made the contribution to the Debate on the question of materials available, I was asked whether these houses would absorb all the pressed steel in the country. The answer is that they will not. It is expected that if 100,000 houses are made in the factories in the first year it will require one-third of the total of pressed steel of the country, leaving two-thirds available for other work, and that is an important figure to remember. On the question of timber, it is anticipated by the Government and my Department that timber will be very difficult to obtain for the first year or two and that, apart from maintenance work, it will be required for general housing. In the Portal house there is only about half a standard of timber and that will enable the doors inside to be of timber. There is the question of timber


for floors as well as doors, but all the doors will be of timber, with the exception of the bathroom and the exit door from the kitchen.
We have taken care not to impinge on any commodities or fittings required for general housing, except baths. The supply of baths is well down now, and we shall be making a claim for baths for these particular bungalows. We are trying to make use of the firms with experience of mass production. If we do not do that, where should we go? Would it not be inviting disaster? There are two firms which would have the plant and capacity just now. It means this: If one of the firms worked two shifts, each of 50 hours a week, they would turn out one house every six minutes, and if the two firms were both working double shifts there would be one house turned out every three minutes. I am certain we are engaging in high-rate production, and when Members are asking that it should be transferred to other places, it must be ascertained if the presses are available in sufficient numbers and whether the organisation is available to produce at that rate of 100,000 houses a year. The programme of pressed steel houses at the rate of 100,000 houses a year for two years, using timber only for floors and interior doors, with the exception of the bathroom and kitchen exit door, includes fittings made in the factory which will raise the standard for permanent houses. I have not yet heard of any one who went through the prototype house who has not testified to the definite improvement in the kitchen and home generally. The fittings will be of standard size, and we hope that they will be so generally accepted that they will form part and parcel of the ordinary housing of the people of this country.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform us whether the fittings in the exhibition house are the same as those to be put in these 200,000 houses? We asked that question but did not get a definite assurance.

Mr. Hicks: I do not think they will be better. There is one point where the hon. Member might say there is a difference. Instead of chrome steel being used I think pressed steel will be used with vitreous enamel. As far as I know, there is no other alteration.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is that the only difference?

Mr. Hicks: That is the only one of which I am aware. There have been additional improvements, such as the copper and water butt and other amenities. These houses are to be publicly owned. We are moving one of these houses from Edinburgh to Glasgow; this shows they are dismountable. We anticipate that between 8,000 and 10,000 men properly trained in the assembly and erection of these houses will be able to erect 100,000 a year.

Mr. Gallacher: What about land?

Mr. Hicks: That is a matter for the Ministry of Health. It does not come under my Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham raised the question of the type of work that will have to be done upon the sites. The price of £550 that my Minister considered in the original instance has been extended to £600 to allow £50 for improvements to the height of the rooms, ventilation, the provision of a back door, and the shed outside. On the site, so far as building work is concerned, there will be the erection on the site; plumbing connections—not much work on those because they are standard; the concrete slab to be put over the site in the first instance, or the piers that the house may be put upon; drains to be put in, paths to be made and the doors hung. There are certain functions on which the building trade will be called in to advise my noble Friend. There is no intention of avoiding that. Every encouragement will be given to them to assist in the erection of the houses.
One point I ought to make is that we are doing away with the hire purchase system for many essentials in the home. The provision of wardrobes and cupboards, the bookcase in the living room, the sink, the immersion heater, the thermostat and so on—my Noble Friend is entitled to a little respectful commendation for thinking of these. This will eliminate the need for men and women, when they get married, having to equip themselves with some of the furniture they require by hire purchase. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said he hoped to be able to supply the same type of furniture as that which was exhibited in the Portal house at a


cost of £45. I am sure that no jerry-builders or any others put this sort of furniture into a house unless they are forced to do so. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow is now back. He was not able, apparently, to listen to the kind things I said about him. We are obtaining prices for fittings such as stoves, gas and electric cookers and refrigerators. Many working class homes have never had a refrigerator.

Mr. Gallacher: They never had anything to put in the "frig."

Mr. Hicks: I have had one for a number of years in my own house, and I would not want to be without it. It is a nice thought that in the kitchen unit in every home there should be a refrigerator.

Mr. Sloan: If my hon. Friend lived as far North as we did he would not need a refrigerator.

Mr. Hicks: No, but when I go to the hon. Member's country I get a very warm welcome. The atmosphere there does not prevent a warmth of heart. The minimum life of these houses is ten years.

Mr. Gallacher: The minimum?

Mr. Hicks: We hope it is the maximum, but we should not turn people out if they had no other shelter. We are trying to stimulate other house building in the interim period, and we hope that the arrears of other building will be overtaken to such an extent that there will be no need to keep on these temporary houses. We have been successful with the prevention of noise through the walls, and as regards condensation we have been advised by the Watford Research Station that they are satisfied on that point. Nobody's home, however, has been free from condensation sometimes.

Mr. Gallacher: Are you addressing the Tory Reform gang?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): If hon. Members would address the Chair it might be easier all round.

Mr. Hicks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I hope Members will take notice of what you have said.
About £50 is estimated as the cost of services and drainage. Site preparation ordinarily includes the making of the roads and putting in sewers. In this

matter the houses will not only be manufactured, transported and erected on the sites, but water, electric light and gas, together with drains and services, will be put in as part of the general cost. It does not include the cost of land.

Mr. A. Hopkinson: Does it include the cost of concrete road making and putting mains up to the houses before they are connected?

Mr. Hicks: It does not include the making of roads but it does include paths round the house and hedges, and the fittings are fairly expensive. This £600 is made up like this: Erection costs including drains and services, and concrete slab, roughly £100; built-in cupboards and the kitchen unit with gas cooker and refrigerator are estimated to cost another £100; £175 is the price generally for the steel in the carcase, the roof and the ceiling, walls and floor supports and the shed. The balance of £225 includes bath, lavatory basin, w.c., living-room stove, painting, hot and cold water circulation, waste pipe, immersion heater, wooden floor, wooden doors, antidrum treatment, ventilators, electric lighting and so on. Each item has been examined and made up to ascertain the cost and not to guess at it. Every item has had to be examined by the greatest experts we can summon to our aid to find out the actual cost. Whilst £600 is the figure given now, it must of necessity be a rough estimate until the houses go into production and are assembled and put up in proper positions in such numbers as to allow us to give a more accurate estimate. It is not anticipated that it will be any more. It is hoped and believed that the house may be supplied at an even cheaper rate.

Mr. Gallacher: I would ask the hon. Gentleman very seriously not to follow the example of the Minister of Health and refer to part of these houses as the carcase. Nothing could so prejudice them in the eyes of the people as to use this term. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be advisable if the Minister was allowed to finish his speech without further interruption.

Mr. Hicks: It would be better called a factory-made bungalow than a factory-made house. We must have some respect


for the building trade operatives and we have entered into an agreement with them to expand their personnel. That is one of the great things about these houses being publicly owned and licensed for a period. The building trade have been asked to agree to bring their numbers up to at least 1,250,000 for getting through the programme after the war. After examination of the difficulties they have agreed to help us in this matter. Therefore, I do not want temporary houses or sub-standard houses put up all over the place. We owe it to these men, who have made a great contribution to the war and have worked very hard and are working very hard now in this city helping to repair damage caused by outside agencies. We owe it to them in our planning and building in this country and to the industry generally that we ought definitely to take and keep control over this matter.
My Minister is satisfied, after having discussed this matter with the manufacturers, that, with the control that at present exists of the respective industries, he will be able to negotiate a proper price. The iron and steel industry and the timber industry are under the control of the Ministry of Supply. Anyone who knows anything about control knows that when a Government places orders they can put in as many costing clerks as they care to see what is exactly the cost of labour, material and overhead and report it back to the Department that gives out the job. Once they have done that and the accurate costings and facts are obtained, the Government decide the price. That is the controlled price arrived at after an examination has been made by competent men into the costs of manufacture. My Minister is satisfied that there is as effective a control over this matter as over anything—and more, because this is a Government order. I ask hon. Members to believe me when I say that we are not simply accepting somebody's statement about it but that there has been a genuine attempt to find out exactly what the position is. We must be prepared to meet the position which will probably face us after the war with Germany. We shall be five years behind with our building and with our maintenance work. We shall have a largely depleted labour force and our difficulties will have been added to by the flying bomb. I feel that a

Minister or a Government that neglected to make provision to meet such a contingency would be keenly criticised by this House and by the country.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman say a word about one of the major difficulties facing urban areas which was raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that erecting these houses of a temporary character on the land available inhibits them from going on with their permanent building on that land?

Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have nothing to do with selecting the sites. That is a matter for the local authorities and the Minister of Health and it will be impossible for me to interfere with that.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that an urban authority has no choice but to build an the land it has, or not at all?

Mr. A. Hopkinson: The first point I want to raise is this. At the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman talked about——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking a question or beginning a speech. I did not call him.

Mr. Hopkinson: Whether I am asking a question or beginning a speech depends upon you, Sir, and not upon me.

Ordered:
That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Pym.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1944)

The Under-Secretary of State far the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move,
That the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1944, dated 20th July 1944, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Acts, 1943 and 1944, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 20th July, be approved.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of procedure. I would like to ask, in view of the previous Debate having been


adjourned so that other Members can speak, whether we should take these Regulations at this hour as they are complex and raise points which may have to be debated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: According to what was said earlier in the day, it seems best that the Minister should move these Regulations first and then the hon. Member's point of Order might be more properly put.

Mr. Buchanan: After we have heard what the Minister has to say and if there appear to be important matters upon which hon. Members wish to express their views, would you then consider further points of Order with regard to the length of the Sitting?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If there is any desire on the part of the House, having heard the Minister's speech, to prolong the discussion, that will obviously be the time for the Government to make their decision on the matter.

Mr. Peake: The Regulations which I am bringing before the House require an affirmative Resolution, by virtue of Section 20 of the Parliamentary Elections and Meetings Act, 1943, which prescribes that all the administrative Regulations shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, as soon as may be after they are made, and shall not come into operation until they are approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. The provisional draft of these Regulations was laid before hon. Members in the form of a White Paper in October, 1943, at the time when the Bill was laid before the House, so as to enable hon. Members to have a very clear idea of what it was intended to do by means of Regulations under the Bill. These Regulations conform substantially to the draft contained in the White Paper which was issued in October last year.
They are rather voluminous in form, but I do not think they will be the subject of much controversy, because they do not raise any point of principle, and, to a very large extent, they follow the existing electoral law contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1918. They are designed in order to be suitable to the form of continuous registration which was prescribed in the principal Act last year. Part I of the Regulations sets

out the machinery necessary for the compilation of electors' lists and the publication of a register, in accordance with the requirements of Section 12 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1943. Part II prescribes the procedure for voting by post and by proxy. A civilian can vote by post as an absent voter under Regulation 19, if a registration officer is satisfied that his occupation, service or employment may debar him from voting in person at an election; while Regulation 20 prescribes procedure for members of the Forces to vote by post, which procedure is, by Section 9 (3) of the Act, available to Service personnel who are in the United Kingdom at the time of an election.
Part III of the Regulations deals with miscellaneous matters, and I would only mention at this stage what I consider to be the two most important. Regulation 29 prescribes the constituencies where, by reason of the large number of persons qualified for the business premises vote, it would not be possible for an electoral registration officer, on the initiation of the election, to publish the notice, required by the first rule of the Third Schedule to the Act, containing his estimate of the number of persons qualified for registration in the constituency. The object of publication of that notice by the electoral registration officer is to enable candidates to decide and to ascertain how much money they are entitled to expend at the election. There are certain constituencies where there are considerable numbers of business voters, and the number of these business voters will not be known on the day when the election is initiated and will not become clear and settled until 14 days later. By an agreement between the three agents of the three principal political parties my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has selected the constituencies mentioned in Regulation 29 as being those constituencies in which it will not be possible for an accurate estimate to be formed, owing to the large number of business voters who were qualified for those constituencies in the year 1939.

Mr. Buchanan: I have not very much objection. Regarding the amount of money that may be spent, as I understand it, none of us in Glasgow ever spend anything like that sum. I think I spent £100 or £110 in the last election. As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, there are five of these constituencies in


Scotland: that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and mine in Glasgow, two in Edinburgh and another elsewhere. I wonder how a large business vote in Gorbals has been arrived at? What method was taken to ascertain it, because no one who knows my constituency would say it has a large business vote? I have no objection.

Mr. Peake: I will ascertain and reply later in the Debate to the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I expect we shall find that in 1939 there was above a certain proportion of business voters registered for the constituency. My hon. Friend may be reassured in regard to this Regulation, because its only effect really is to limit the amount of money which his political opponents may spend in trying to defeat him.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Do I understand that this was ascertained by inquiries made by the Home Secretary from the political agents of the three chief political parties?

Mr. Peake: May I make it perfectly clear? The number of business voters on the 1939 register is, of course, well known. The figures are available, and by consultation with the three chief political party agents, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland prescribed where the datum line should be drawn for the publication of the estimate on the later date rather than on the earlier date prescribed by Rule. I of the Third Schedule of the principal Act.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Was any intimation given to, or was there consultation with, the sitting Members of the constituencies? It seems to me a little, shall I say cavalier, to consult merely the agents of the political parties if the Members concerned had no warning of it. It may have been that such warning was given, but I do not myself recollect having had any communication.

Mr. Peake: I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend will acquit both my right hon. Friends of any intended discourtesy. I think it is perfectly clear that no amount of consultation could have affected the numbers of business voters registered in the year 1939 and it was

simply a question, as I understand it, of saying there was more than a certain percentage of business voters in the constituency in 1939, and that a further period of 14 days ought to be allowed for the forming of an estimate by the registration officer of the number of electors who are likely to vote at the forthcoming election, and in that way to give to the candidates an indication of how much money they would be permitted to spend without incurring penalties.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: My right hon. Friend will realise that we are watching the actions of his office in the laying of Regulations with a certain amount of trepidation. For all we know some small operation may have taken place which will invalidate the election altogether. I have had some experience in my constituency, both in by-elections and in elections, in which difficulties arose, and, believe me, I am not anxious that they should be unnecessarily multiplied on these occasions. I also might have been able to give some assistance, as well as the political agent.

Mr. Peake: I am sure that, if my right hon. and gallant Friend will read the first Rule of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, he will see exactly what is being done. This is only a question of dates. In the ordinary way the registration officer has to make an estimate on the day the election is initiated, approximately 53 days before polling day, of the number of voters in the division, in order to help candidates to know how much they can spend. The date of the initiation of an election is laid down in the principal Act, and it is necessary for candidates to know how much money they are to be allowed to spend before the election begins. In certain cases, where there are large numbers of business voters, it will not be possible to indicate the number of voters and the consequent amount to be spent until 14 days later, but there will still be something like four and a half or five weeks to polling day. I think I have satisfied the House upon that point.

Mr. George Griffiths: With regard to the business voters' registration, will it be a recommendation of the Committee that there is only to be one vote, instead of a man and his wife voting?

Mr. Peake: That, of course, would require new legislation, and we really cannot properly deal with that on the question of these Regulations, which are machinery for carrying out the existing Act.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman could if he wanted to.

Mr. Peake: No, not under these Regulations, without grave risk of being called to Order. There is one other Regulation to which I ought to draw the attention of the House, and that is Regulation 35, dealing with the supply of copies of electors' lists and of the Service register to candidates or election agents. These documents will not be on sale, and will have to be corrected as the machinery proceeds; this together with the fact that at the time of publication of electors' lists, on the twentieth day after the initiation of an election, it will not be known who is to be a candidate, because nomination day is not earlier than the 44th day after initiation, it has been difficult to draft a Regulation so as to ensure that a person. who is a bona fide candidate will get a reasonable number of copies of these documents, and, at the same time, safeguard registration officers against last-minute demands for copies which they will be unable to supply. Therefore, the Regulation, which has been the subject of discussion, with the chief party agents, provides that any person who appears to a registration officer to be genuinely seeking nomination and who makes his request before the twentieth day after the initiation of the election, shall be supplied, in any event, with 8 copies of these documents. Any person who makes his request after the twentieth day—that is to say, after the date of the publication of the lists—will get a guaranteed minimum of two copies of these lists and he may get more if the registration officer should have any surplus after making the proper provision for the copies which are officially required.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that, if the application is made before the 36th day before the Election Register is published, he will still be deprived of getting eight copies of the Register but he will get his eight copies of the Service Register, under this Regulation?

Mr. Peake: I am not sure that I follow my hon. Friend's point. I should like

to look into it. But the intention is that a bona fide candidate who is in the field shall automatically obtain, as a minimum, eight copies of this Register.

Mr. Bellenger: Of the complete Register?

Mr. Peake: Yes. Those, I think, are the most important points in the Regulation, but, as I have said, they are voluminous, and in some respects a little difficult to follow, and if hon. Members have points to raise I will try to satisfy them when I reply.

Mr. Bellenger: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to continue the point which I put to your predecessor in the Chair, who interrupted me while I was putting it. It is obvious, from the remarks already made by the Under-Secretary of State, that this is a most complicated subject. The Government have already adjourned the previous Debate on housing, and I want to ask the Patronage Secretary whether he does not think that at this hour it would be advisable to adjourn further consideration of these Regulations, which raise very complicated points, as it may take a considerable time if hon. Members want to raise questions on them?

Mr. Peake: Perhaps I may, briefly, answer that point. These Regulations are very urgently required. If the House were to adjourn for the Recess without approving these Regulations, none of the necessary work in connection with the preparation of electors' lists could proceed. We have already had to simplify the principal Act, in order to enable this work to be carried out, and it is really very urgent that we should have the Regulations before the House adjourns. In the second place, hon. Members cannot complain that they have been taken by surprise by this document, because a very similar document was available to Members, in the form of a White Paper, as long ago as October last; and, as I say, these Regulations, in fact, contain a great deal of what is existing law, settled by the Representation of the People Act, 1918.

Mr. Woodburn: The House will recognise that these Regulations are, of course, of a temporary character, meant for a temporary situation, and, to that extent,


they can be recognised as being generally satisfactory. There are, however, one or two points that I would like to raise regarding the working of these Regulations. I take it that if, before the Election takes place, there are sufficient staff and printing facilities available, even though at that time Part II of the Act is not brought into operation, the restrictions that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, regarding the supply of Registers, will not apply—that is, that enough Registers will be available at any time during the election, and that these restrictions included in the Regulation will not be adhered to in the strict letter of the law. There is a provision for flexibility, and I hope that that will be interpreted generously. I should like the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on that point. In regard to Article 13, which deals with the Service Register, the Register has to be compiled from applications received. When the original Act was passed an assurance was given that all the Service voters would be registered. Since then the arrangements seem to have brought in the provision that Service members, like business people, have to contract in. I represent a party which has had a great deal of experience in regard to contracting in, and when the law was changed with regard to the political affiliation of trades unions we realised the difficulty of getting people to contract in. The amount of labour and energy required was enormous compared with automatic registration. It would be wrong to let the Regulations pass without expressing great concern at the fact that the Services Register depends upon contracting in.

Mr. Peake: Once we get on to the question of the mode of registration of Service voters, and if we proceed with it, we may get into a very wide Debate indeed, but this question of the mode of registration and of voting by Service voters, was laid down in the principal Act of 1943, and the Regulations now before the House do not really touch it.

Mr. Woodburn: The Act is very clear, but when the Home Secretary was explaining it to the House, in reply to a question, he made it definite that the Government made themselves responsible for the Services being registered.

Mr. Turton: Does not the Act say that the Service voter shall be registered in

any manner authorised by the National Registration Regulations?

Mr. Peake: It does not say that.

Mr. Turton: Is it not in Section 2?

Mr. Woodburn: The Home Secretary ought not to leave this in the way of odds and ends being handed in, but the whole Army and Air Force should be brought on to the Register automatically in the same way as civilians. I hope that this matter will be taken seriously, and the Government as a whole must make themselves responsible for the registration of the Forces, otherwise very serious difficulties might arise. At the moment far too much is left to chance and I suggest that the filling up of the form will be very difficult to the average member of the Forces and something should be done to make it as simple as possible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not at all sure that the hon. Member is entitled to go into this question. The Regulations do not appear to deal with the detail of registration of Service voters. I have not a copy of the Act before me but to the best of my recollection that detail was dealt with rather in full in the original Act, and, if so, that would be the place in which to deal with it.

Mr. Woodburn: On page 29 it gives instructions to persons desiring to appoint proxies to vote at Parliamentary elections and the forms are all laid down for claims to be placed on the voters' list. Therefore I suggest respectfully that it comes under these Regulations. It is to these forms that I direct my remarks and therefore I suggest, with your approval, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I should be in Order. it is rather formidable to have to fill in these forms. A soldier may think it an Income Tax form and run for his life. What is required is that the very excellent explanation on page 29 should be made available to soldiers in a much more attractive manner than in the Regulations as they appear here. In fact, if I may say so, in this document there is a great deal of the essentials of modern democracy but no one could imagine that the modern democracy would buy this document and read it, and we would like some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman about the provisions that are to be made to bring this to the notice of the people who are going to vote—what


are their rights, what are their duties, how they ought to proceed to obtain these forms.
If I might make a suggestion, it would be that the Press and the platform and the B.B.C. should he utilised to bring this to the notice of the people in the most popular way possible. The Ministry of Information is having difficulty in finding suitable topics for some of its meetings throughout the country, and there is no reason at all why some of its meetings should not instruct the people on the new procedure in regard to a possible election. On the B.B.C. there are talks to the Forces. I heard a Parliamentary talk to the Forces on Saturday night which suggested that Members of Parliament were breaking up for a Recess to dodge the flying bombs——

Mr. Bellenger: Who said that?

Mr. Woodburn: I can think of a better use of the Parliamentary broadcast than that, and a more honest one, and I protest against the B.B.C.—which is so careful in censoring everybody else who is going to speak—allowing things of that kind to pass. I suggest that the Parliamentary broadcast might direct some of its talks to making known to the Forces what are their rights and duties as members of a democracy, instead of casting aspersions on its principal machinery in this country. I hope it will be made easy for the Forces to fill in the form included in this document, and I suggest that the very fine educational organisation developed in the Army——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is really getting on to another matter which has only a very distant relation if any to these Regulations. I do not think he ought to pursue the issue.

Mr. Woodburn: To keep in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask in what way are these forms to be brought to the notice of the Service voters; by what vehicle is the Service voter to discover that these forms exist; and will it be possible to use the very fine welfare and educational services developed in the Army to see that these documents reach the people who are to use them?
If I may come to a more detailed point connected with page 3, Regulation 2, I would urge the Department, if possible, to print the Registers in street order in the

case of villages and towns where they are built up to any great extent. If they are not in street order great inconvienience is caused to everybody carrying on electioneering. We talk about the country as distinct from the town but in many cases these county constituencies are no longer villages, where everybody knows everyone else, but small towns, and have streets as in the urban areas. It would be a great facility in electioneering if the documents could be printed in street order.
One other great advantage would be if, in addition to the printing of the names, the designation—Mr., Mrs. or Miss—could be indicated in some way. Everybody who has taken part in electioneering knows the terrible trouble that arises by addressing a "Miss" as "Mrs." and a "Mrs." as "Miss." Sometimes other complications arise where you get a name that might be Mr., Mrs. or Miss. Therefore in case we miss any electors, I hope some indication will be given of the title which should be applied to the person concerned. The Regulations, as I said at the beginning, are interim and depend on an election coming before the facilities that are hoped for will be available. I would, however, like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, in the event of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference being adopted by the House, and in the event of changes being made in regard to details of electioneering, the Government propose to bring in a new set of Regulations to cover these changes, because an Election may not take place for a considerable time and there may be ample opportunity of doing the job in a more thorough fashion than is possible under these interim provisions.

Mr. Turton: I would like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) about Regulation 2, dealing with the order of names in the Register, and his plea that a lady who is unmarried should be so designated, in order to help canvassers. They are important factors. In this Regulation you are going away from the 1939 Register. The 1939 provisions made it easier for the Register to be put in street order, and you say that it shall be arranged in alphabetical order although not so arranged according to the order adopted for the corresponding parts of the 1939 Register.


I hope that in due course the Regulations will be amended, and that provision will be made in all cases for the Register to be put in what I would call walking order, rather than street order. That is far more convenient for canvassers of all parties.
I have some committee points in mind, although whatever one says can have no effect because the Regulations cannot be amended at this stage. I should, however, like my right hon. Friend to explain two points on Regulation No. 11. I can find in this Regulation no procedure laid down for the calling of witnesses, although it is quite clear that in the hearing of claims and objections witnesses must be called, because in Regulation 10 (2) (c) there is talk about evidence. Therefore, we must have some provision put into the Regulation to allow witnesses to be called so that objections can be duly heard. Paragraph 4 of Regulation 11 is rather curious. It states:
Any person entitled by this regulation to appear may appear either in person or by any other person, other than counsel, on his behalf.
Why are members of the Bar not allowed to appear, although it would appear that a friend or solicitor, or anybody in the country except the only person qualified to present a case, can be heard? This is a surprising feature, especially when I recollect that my right hon. Friend is himself a member of the Bar. I wonder why he is trying to do down his profession at this stage in his career. Leaving the question of Service voters to the last, I would like my right hon. Friend to make clear what is really meant by Regulation 35. To the ordinary simple mind it is quite unintelligible. I think all will be grateful for the concession of allowing eight copies of the Register to a candidate but it is really in fact only six, because he would always require two copies written on one side of the paper only. In town areas six or eight may well be sufficient but in a rural constituency it is insufficient. I do not mind how many party agents have agreed on this but, if you get a large constituency of 20 to 25 miles, you require more than eight copies. In fact, you require 12.
I get much more worried when I read this proviso. An election will take place 53 days after it is initiated. If a candidate does not make his request to the returning officer before 33 days from the

election, that is nearly a month before nomination day, he is only going to get two copies. I think that is extremely unjust. It will probably be giving a great advantage to the sitting Member over any candidate who is trying to turn him out. It would bode ill for the House of Commons if it was said that we had put in this Regulation which really debarred any candidate from fighting a sitting Member. No candidate can fight a rural constituency with only two copies of the Register. However rich he is, he cannot get more, because none are for sale. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this proviso in Regulation 35. I gather that part of it was not agreed upon by the party agents, and it has caused great consternation amongst those who have the business of conducting elections that in certain cases, if the candidate comes late on the scene, he has only two copies. As I picture the position, those who will be late in coming forward will be the men and women in the Forces. Why is it that these men, who will probably be coming from abroad and will be adopted rather late, are only to have two copies while the Member of Parliament, or the candidate who is at home or is not in the Services, will get eight? It is a terrible embarrassment for the Service candidate. I hope the Government will consider very carefully before they allow that Regulation to be passed.
I should like to refer to the fons et origo of the Regulations dealing with the Service voter, Section 8 (2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1943, which laid down that no person should be entitled to be registered in the Service Register for an election
unless there has been transmitted to the registration officer for that constituency in any manner authorised by the National Registration Regulations.
Therefore it is clear that we have to rely on these Regulations for the manner in which the declaration of the Service voter is to be sent to the registration officer. I am very disappointed to find that it is dismissed so cursorily in Regulation 13 with no assistance in what is a most difficult problem in legislation that this country has ever faced. The results of the method by which it has been carried on with great zeal by all the Service Departments are causing grave disquiet. They are trying to co-operate in this matter yet we find that soldiers, sailors


and merchant seamen are not getting registered. The Committee made a recommendation that the Record Office could help returning officers, yet in these Regulations there is no mention of any help being given by the Record Office.

Mr. Peake: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. He has quoted Sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the principal Act, which begins by saying that the National Registration Regulations may provide for a number of matters.

Mr. Turton: I was actually quoting from Sub-section (2), which contains a reference to National Registration Regulations.

Mr. Peake: I would point out that the National Registration Regulations are defined by the Act as Regulations made under the National Registration Acts, and they have nothing to do with regulations made under the Act which we are now discussing.

Mr. Turton: The matter becomes more complicated when we appreciate that the whole of the Service voting is something new. In the old National Registration Regulations the Service voter was put on automatically.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend on this point, which is being so ably pressed by my hon. Friend, whether the House is entitled to see the Regulations made by the national registration authority, or does he simply make Regulations without consulting the House?

Mr. Peake: I am sure that these Regulations would be available to the hon. Member if he were to seek them.

Mr. Bellenger: But we cannot alter them.

Mr. Turton: I gather that the scope of our discussion is even wider than before. The National Registration Regulations presumably would allow for automatic registration under Clause 8. In that case I was avoiding talking about automatic registration because I felt I should be out of Order, but from the explanation given by my right hon. Friend it appears that I would be in Order if I pressed the point that the Government should adopt the principle of automatic registration. I am reinforced in my plea by the fact that Mr. Speaker, in a recent letter to the

Prime Minister, has put forward the view that his Conference felt that registration for Service voters would never be satisfactory until there was automatic registration. It seems to be most untimely that, when we have published at the week-end the report of the Conference on Electoral Reform and Registration which advocates automatic registration of Service voters, we should get these weedy, nebulous Regulations dealing with the Service voter. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should, in his explanation of these Regulations, have made some comment on paragraph 20 of Mr. Speaker's letter to the Prime Minister. I could have understood my right hon. Friend saying that these Regulations, voluminous and unworkable in some respects, will have to be amended in view of the letter of Mr. Speaker. That, I believe, is the right way to look at this matter. This Conference has been sitting for some months dealing with some of the problems that are included in these Regulations. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend would not have had the time to bring in new Regulations to conform to what Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended, and I think it would have been at least, shall I say, polite, if, in moving them, he had said that he was going to amend some of them in conformity with the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. May I beg of him to do that in his winding up speech? We have the fact that the Service voter is not getting registered and the other fact that the men in the Forces do not know what their obligations are under this Measure. We all realise that when they read these Regulations they will be none the wiser. After all, there is, in these Regulations, on pages 28 and 29——

Mr. Peake: I must raise a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend is pursuing an argument as to the method of registration, and the method of voting of Service voters. Both of those matters are clearly covered by Sections of the principal Act, and the only respect in which these Regulations touch the question of the Service voter is in certain instructions which they give to electoral registration officers, as to how they are to perform their duty, in entering the names, and so forth. I submit that we cannot discuss upon these Regulations the whole


question of how Service voters are to be put on the Register and how they are to exercise their vote.

Mr. Turton: On this point of Order, I would point out that I was pursuing this argument—and I think it is in Order—that these Regulations should not be passed in view of the fact that Mr. Speaker had reported only four days ago, saying that the present method should be changed. That seemed to be a good argument for saying that these Regulations should be amended.

Mr. Peake: If I had commented upon the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, I should have been commenting upon something which requires repeal of certain Sections of the 1943 Act and the substitution therefor of a totally different method of registering Service voters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that is so, and that the hon. Member's argument is therefore out of Order.

Mr. Turton: I feel that I have made my point and I will bow to your Ruling, Sir. I was going to draw attention to the form C, the proxy application form. Perhaps I shall be corrected on this point. Will it be available to the Service voter who wishes to have a proxy? If it is not, what is he going to have? Some information must be given to the Service voter as to what is required of him. The position of the Service voter is complicated by the fact that in the Army only eight months ago there was a general sweep up to get the soldiers to make proxies and of course the proxies they made were under the old 1939 Register. If it has not to do with soldiers, what has, I ask? There must be something in these Regulations to lay down to Service voters the instructions to those desiring to appoint proxies. I quite agree that this is intended for civilians. Therefore I ask whether my right hon. Friend anywhere in the whole of these voluminous Regulations instructs the Service voter how to prepare proxies. At the present time, too, Service men are in a considerable state of ignorance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is referring to the proxy application on page 28 which applies to civilians only. There is no relation between it and the question of Service voters.

Mr. Turton: That is the point I was making. It is headed "civilian" and therefore there is no instruction to the Service voter how to make a proxy, yet the Regulations cover the making of proxies by Service voters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member will look at page 22 he will see there a proxy paper for the Service Register.

Mr. Turton: That is the very point I am making and which you reinforce, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Here you have on page 22 a proxy paper for the Services with no instructions to the soldier how to make his proxy. Turn to page 29 and you find that the civilian is getting full instructions, six paragraphs of instructions, on how to make his proxy. The soldier is in considerable doubt. I was saying that last year he was asked to make a proxy on the 1939 Register. Many hundreds of soldiers filled up that proxy. They do not realise that that proxy is completely valueless, and that should be pointed out in instructions in the form of an appendix to these Regulations. Men are being asked, "Have you made your declaration and appointed a proxy?" They say, "Yes, we did that a year ago." That really means that they are going to lose their vote at the next Election. I ask my right hon. Friend to pay due attention to this question of Servicemen having their vote. We laid down, mistakenly in my view, in 1943 a method for giving them a vote. Let us see that that at least is carried out clearly, and that the men are given the opportunity of voting which was given to them by the 1943 Act, and that they are given instructions as to how to make their declaration, and are also given instructions as to the fact that the proxy they made last year is now quite valueless, and that they have to make a new one. May I make an appeal that the recommendation of the Vivian Committee that the record offices should be brought in to help in this question of the Service voter should be implemented by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Bellenger: I think the House is entitled to complain at the methods adopted by the Government in bringing these Regulations before us at such a time and just before we are about to rise for the Summer Recess. It is quite obvious from the speech made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for East Stirling


(Mr. Woodburn) that there are many issues arising out of these Regulations which will in all probability result in a good deal of injustice being done, at any rate to one class of voter, namely, the Service voter. I think the House should have had a longer time and had an earlier period of the day to discuss these matters more thoroughly than we can possibly do at this late hour. The Under-Secretary has said that the Government must have these Regulations before the Recess if we are going to get on with the job of compiling the Register in preparation for an Election. I can well understand that, and all hon. Members will wish to assist, as far as we possibly can. But I think it would be a dereliction of our duty if we did not bring prominently before the Government to-day certain points, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has done, and as I propose to do in as short a space of time as I can.
Take Regulation 10 (1). Stated there is the method to be adopted by aggrieved persons for making and recording all claims and objections. I should imagine that may be possible without a great deal of difficulty in the case of the civilian Register. But I suggest that it is going to be practically impossible for the Service voter overseas, fighting this country's battles, or farther overseas, in an army of occupation, or still farther overseas, fighting against Japan, even to know whether his name is on the Register or not. He may assume that, because he signed a form, his name has been recorded, but he will never know whether that form reaches its destination; and if it does not, his name will not be on the Register. How is the Service voter to raise an objection if he does not know whether his name is on the Register or not? I do not think that this Regulation meets the case of the Service voter, the absent voter, or the Service man serving overseas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this matter at some time, and see whether it is possible to make the Regulation more effective in the case of those objectors who happen to be Service men serving overseas.
In Regulation 14 it is stated that the registration officer shall make all the necessary corrections and do everything necessary to form the Register in time to allow the publication thereof, etc. I wonder what precisely that means. Does it mean, as we have been given to under-

stand in answers to Questions in this House, that it will be possible for candidates to have a sight of the Register, in so far as it has been made up, before the actual date of its publication? My right hon. Friend may remember the point we put to the Home Secretary, that it would be desirable that candidates should be able to see, for example, the Service Register, which will always be in process of being made up, whether it is complete, or incomplete, or partially complete, before the freezing date, when no more names can be added. It may be that provision for that is made in the National Registration officer's Regulations, but I cannot see any reference in these Regulations to what, I understood, was an undertaking given by the Home Secretary, that candidates could have a sight of part of the register before the actual publication date. I have not got the column of HANSARD available at the moment, but, if my recollection serves me aright, the Under-Secretary will find if he looks into it, that that was the position.
I come to Regulation 22 (4), which deals with the employment of proxies. The registration officer, under this Regulation, has to keep a list of proxies, and to satisfy himself, at any rate in certain cases, as to the relationship of the proxy to the voter. He has to decide in his own mind whether the proxy is a husband, a wife, a parent, a grandparent, a brother, or a sister, because, except in these cases, no person can carry more than two proxies for absent voters—I think I am right in saying that, in the case of these near relations, they can carry More than two proxies. How is the registration officer to prove whether the proxy is a husband, a wife, a parent, a grandparent, a brother, or a sister? Will he want the birth certificate, or what evidence will he want? I come to Regulation 23 (1). I am putting these points rather quickly I am afraid, because I want to economise time. They are all substantial points, and, even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer them to-day, they have to be answered at some time if we are going to make these Regulations really effective, so that we get at a General Election as nearly as possible a complete record of what sort of House of Commons the country wants.
In Regulation 23, Sub-section (1), if the person nominated as first choice in the Service voters' application for the


issue of a proxy paper fails, the Service voter, I believe, has two alternatives. He nominates first the proxy, and, if that fails, because of some legal disqualification or because of refusal to accept the proxy, he then has a second choice, and, in this Regulation, a very complicated machinery is to be set up in order that the registration officer shall notify the absent voter that one or other of his proxies has failed. The purpose of that, as I understand it, is to give the absent voter an opportunity of appointing another proxy. How is the registration officer to notify the absent voter that his proxies have failed for one reason or another? He must send notification to the absent voter, care of the National Register—the Central Register. How is the Central Register to find that absent voter? Supposing the absent voter happens to be a merchant seaman, I think the Central Register would have considerable difficulty in finding that absent voter and telling him that his proxies had failed. What I presume they will do is to send a notification to the Ministry of War Transport and leave it to them to do the work.
The same thing will happen in the case of the Service voter. It will lie with the Army, Navy or Air Force to find these men and to tell them that something which they wanted done cannot be done and to ask them if they will do something else. I think I have said enough to enforce the point put by the hon. Member for East Stirling and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that some better system for registering Service voters is necessary than that laid down in the Act and implemented by these Regulations. Obviously, I cannot develop the point, but I urge my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to these limited remarks we are able to make, because if, as the hon. Member for East Stirling said, there is any large proportion of Service voters disqualified, for whatever reason, there will be considerable discontent and dissatisfaction when the election arrives.
Under Schedule I, Sub-paragraph (5), there is set out something which I do not quite understand. It refers to the opening of the absent voters' ballot boxes and what happens if the contents are not quite all right and do not coincide with some-

thing or other, but, quite frankly, I do not understand it, and, if my right hon. Friend can explain it, I should be happy to hear his explanation. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has referred to Regulation 35, which provides for the number of copies of the Register which shall be provided for various types of candidates. I think that if the reason is economy, as the Minister indicated, it would be well worth the Government's while to spend a little more money and to provide a little more paper—and they are spending a lot of money and utilising a lot of paper at the present time—in order to see that every candidate, Service candidate or otherwise, has every opportunity of providing himself with the particulars that he wants in order to present his case to the electors. In limiting the number of copies provided for candidates, the Government are doing a disservice to democracy.
On page 29, paragraph (6), it is stated that a proxy paper will only remain in force for the Parliamentary election pending at the time of its issue. I am wondering what is to happen if a by-election takes place in a certain constituency and then a General Election follows soon afterwards. That is a possibility. By-elections are taking place, and, although I would regret the circumstances very much, it might even be conceivable that quite a number of hon. Members of this House might be sent to eternity by one of the flying bombs and there might be a considerable number of by-elections. According to paragraph (6) it looks as if the Service elector or the absent voter——

Mr. Peake: Page 29 deals with civilians.

Mr. Bellenger: But I understand that civilians and war workers are in the same category.

Mr. Peake: It is Service voters.

Mr. Bellenger: Let us assume that the civilian, who is the only type of elector governed by this Regulation, has appointed a proxy. Why will he have appointed a proxy? Presumably because he is absent from his constituency. There is an earlier Regulation which gives the reason why he can appoint a proxy, and it is because he is not able for certain reasons to register his vote at a by-election in the constituency where he is registered,


and to all intents and purposes he is an absent voter. If, after a man or woman has appointed his or her proxy, and the by-election has taken place, a General Election should follow, what is to be the position? I take it that the proxy is finished because it has been utilised for the by-election pending at the time of issue, and, therefore, a further proxy would have to be appointed for a General Election—or perhaps another by-election which might conceivably follow a previous by-election.
I have said enough to show that these Regulations, although they may be in accordance with the Act we passed last year, will, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has stated, be unworkable in many respects, and if they are unworkable, what sort of representation are we going to get at the time a General Election comes? I believe that I am right in saying that the General Election will be fought under the Act we passed last year and the Regulations which we are being asked to pass to-day. If that is so, the House of Commons ought to take every precaution and spend as much time as possible in considering how we can get the best possible interpretation of the peoples' wishes whether civilian, business or Service electors. I do not think that these Regulations, or indeed the Act itself, which we are precluded almost from discussing, will provide for that, and therefore I support what has been said by the two previous speakers, that these Regulations will have to be drastically amended at some time, if we are to achieve the results that we all desire.

Sir Richard Acland: I would like to reinforce very strongly what has been said by the two hon. Members on Regulation 2 about the alphabetical order and street order, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that there is no intention of making any substantial change as between what was in 1939 the street order and what may be the alphabetical order. One will not complain if a few places here and there, say, 1 or 2 per cent. in the entire country, which were in street order in 1939 are to be alphabetical in 1944 for some reason or other, but I hope there may be an assurance that there is no intention to take great blocks of the Register, whole wards, whole areas, which have been in

street order almost since the 1832 Reform Bill and turn them into alphabetical order. In a village it may be difficult, but one can just manage it in alphabetical order, whereas if a thickly populated urban area is put into alphabetical order there will be an almighty difficulty in running elections. So I hope an assurance can be given that these words, necessary perhaps in certain cases, do not cover any intention of making a substantial change.
I will ask the Minister to consider one point in Regulation 35, which says that candidates have to make their requests for their eight copies of the Register by a certain date. The exact words are "The candidates or their agents." Strictly speaking, there cannot be an agent until after there is a candidate, but there will be many cases where, on the twentieth day after the initiation of a by-election or General Election there will be local organisations in a constituency—be they Conservative, Labour, Liberal or any other party existent or non-existent at the moment—with the bona fide intention to find and run a candidate which have not yet been able to select one. A somewhat similar case was suggested by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). This will be particularly so when, as will be the case in the coming General Election, they will naturally be looking towards the Services for the type of candidate they would like to select. Would the Under-Secretary undertake to look at this Regulation again to see if he cannot bring in a very small qualifying Regulation, so that representatives of bona fide organisations with the genuine intention of running a candidate should also be able to ask for their eight copies of the Register by the twentieth day? I think that would make a difference and meet a case of hardship of, say, a Conservative association, or some other party which had not chosen their candidate by the twentieth day.
On the general issue of the Service Register, I would only express my conviction that the Government will be obliged to accept the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, and they will be asked to take much more trouble about this business than they seem prepared to take at the moment. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to the Minister for Home Security that they should pay a call on the High Commissioners for Australia


and New Zealand in order to find out what was done by those two countries to enable the soldiers to vote on the battle-field with lists of candidates in front of them. It only needed a little determination and a little trouble, and it was done. I see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that is out of Order and I do not want to go further with that.
I want to make one point on the assumption, which I pray be not correct, that the present system is going to continue, and that we have to contest an election under it. I would also make one small point in relation to the Second Schedule, on page 19, where it will be found that certain days and times are fixed for publishing certain lists. For example, on the twentieth day you publish the civilian residents electors list, and on that objection is made, and on the twenty-fourth day you publish the business premises electors list and by a footnote on page 20 the Register itself is published on the thirty-sixth day. As I see it, the Service Register will not be published to anyone until the thirty-sixth day. Surely that is a mistake which need not be made, even within the framework of the present scheme, which I regard as unworkable.
The Service Register is constantly being compiled, or the raw material for it is constantly being gathered, as Army forms B626 and the corresponding Navy and Air Force forms come to hand. They are coming in slowly; they go to a central point and from there go out to the different constituencies. In so far as they have been received on the day when an election was initiated it would seem quite possible to publish what I would call a Service list on, shall we say, the tenth day after the initiation of the election and, therefore, some 43 days before polling day itself. That would not be a complete Service Register, because a few more Army forms might come in and would have to be added up to the thirty-sixth day, but without the earliest possible publication to the Services, of the Services list, which would be practically identical with the Service Register when it came out, there is no chance at all of the issues of the election, and the names of candidates likely to contest the election, being put before the Service man.
In the case of a soldier fighting in Burma— unless the Government adopt the

Australian and New Zealand schemes—it is too bad. He appoints a proxy who has to be not only his hand, but his brain as well. In the case of a soldier serving in the Middle East, or with the Army of occupation in Europe, if we could persuade the postal authorities to do something special about it—and I think we could—it ought not to be impossible for large numbers of candidates to send election addresses, or brief statements, to them so that they could compare them with statements from other parties. The soldier would then take his air-mail card and write to his wife, or whoever he has appointed as his proxy, and say for whom he wanted to vote. If that could happen the soldier would feel that he had participated in the election. If the list is not published until the thirty-sixth day there is not time at all for this. I would, therefore, like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of making a change from street order to alphabetical order, that he will consider widening the scope of Regulation 35 and amending the Schedule in order to get the Parliamentary Service list published from something like the tenth day after the initiation of an election.

Mr. Tinker: I would like to make a few general comments on these Regulations. I regret very much that there is such a sparse attendance to discuss such a matter as this; for the last hour only about 20 Members have been in the Chamber, and that is a sad reflection on Parliament. One is almost tempted to call a Count to see if we have 40 in the building. One does not like to do that at a time like this but something will have to be done or Parliament will fall into disrepute. If we cannot get more than a handful of people to discuss an important matter like this, attention will have to be drawn to it. It may be that it is not of much importance but it strikes me that more attention ought to be given to it than has been given.
I am amazed at one point that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He tells us that candidates will not get more than two copies of the Register if they come into the field late. That seems to be a very unfair thing and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will clear it up. Clause 29 is headed, "Extension of time for notifying number of electors," and it gives


a list of constituencies which will be entitled to it. I should like to know why there is a difference here and why there are only a few. Is it that the constituencies are widely separated? There ought to be some explanation. There are many more things that I have not been able to go through closely. In common with many others, I have not given the attention that ought to be given to it, but it appears to me very important and greater regard ought to have been paid to it. Whether it is the time or whether it is that we have not thought it important I cannot say, but I am very sorry to have to comment on a matter like this and draw attention to what I claim is a sad reflection on Parliament that a mere handful of people have to deal with what appears to be a very important matter.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I want to add my support to those who have expressed the opinion that the scheme that we are trying to work by these Regulations is unworkable as far as the Service vote is concerned and that it will have to be altered. I am sorry there are not more Members of all parties here to reinforce that claim. There is one rather detailed point to which. I should like the Under-Secretary to give his attention. That is the necessity of notifying those in the Forces who have attempted to register that their registration has been made and is valid. It may quite easily happen, for instance, that a form posted overseas may get lost owing to enemy action or other means and the person concerned will imagine that he has made a good registration when he has not done so, or the form may not have been filled in correctly. There may be some particulars missing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter on these Regulations. There is nothing in them relating to the filling-up of forms.

Mr. Lawson: I think it is desirable that registration officers should notify those who have attempted to register that their registration has been validly made. It could be done either by a new Regulation or by administrative action, so that those who have succeeded should be notified by postcard or some other means and then, if a man has not heard, he can inquire.

Mr. Peake: I will do my best to reply to the points which have been raised.

Hon. Members have raised a great many, some of which are somewhat abstruse. I will reply to the more abstruse points by correspondence because they are points on which hon. Members require an explanation, rather than points on which they were seriously concerned in regard to the merits of the Regulations, My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), for whom I have a great respect, was a little unfortunate. He reproved us for being such a small body remaining here to discuss these Regulations, and went on to ask me for an explanation of Regulation 29. I rather bored the House by dealing with it in my opening remarks at inordinate length, and if the hon. Member had been in his place he would not have asked the question. I must refer him to HANSARD for an answer to the question. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked whether at the second stage, that is to say, when more printing facilities and so forth are available, we will make the Registers available in larger numbers. The difficulty about supplying large numbers of registers is this. If hon. Members will turn to paragraph 35 of the Regulations they will see what the registration officer has to do. He has to supply without fee, if requested by the candidate, for the use of the candidate, copies of the electors' lists and the Service Register, and a note, to be prepared by him, of the differences between the electors' lists and the civilian residents and business premises Register. That is to say, we are instituting a system of continuous registration.
The Register will not contain precisely the same names as the lists and, after the claims of objection have been heard during the process of the election, alterations will have to be made in the Register. It follows from that that these copies, to be accurate, must be supplemented by the registration officer after they have been supplied to candidates. It is, therefore, clear that we cannot supply unlimited numbers. Hon. Members have said that it would be unfair for a candidate who was late in the field to receive only two copies of the Register. I would make it clear that, the numbers of copies prescribed by paragraph 35 are the minimum, and every effort will be made to supply a larger number of copies. Eight is the minimum for a candidate who is early in the field, and two for a candidate


who comes forward shortly before nomination, but there is the limiting factor that supplementary lists have to be prepared during the election, in accordance with the decisions taken upon claims and objections. We are working to a very tight time table and it would be extremely difficult under the time table to get the Registers published on the 36th day, which is the date required by the Act for publication; but I will undertake to see that efforts are made to try to supply additional copies. I do not think I can go beyond that.
My hon. Friend also asked whether we would try to achieve wide publicity on the rights which voters have under the Act. Yes, Sir, we will do what we can, and I will see that his remarks are brought to the notice of the Minister of Information. I agree with him that it is of importance that persons who have never voted before should have some guidance given to them as to the method of exercising their votes.

Mr. Mathers: There are also regimental and Service educational agencies which might be used.

Mr. Peake: I will certainly bring that point to the notice of the Service Departments.

Mr. George Griffiths: Service men are very sore and bitter about the fact that other sections of education have been put across for them, but this matter has not been put across at all, and they do not understand it. I suggest that the Services should be given more information.

Mr. Peake: I will certainly bring my hon. Friend's observation to the notice of the Service Departments.
I was also asked with regard to the arrangement of the names in alphabetical order or in street order, and that point arises on paragraph 2, the first section of which states:
The local authority may determine the order to be adopted for the names in any section of the register.

Mr. Mathers: It is their responsibility now.

Mr. Peake: Yes, it is the present law. The Regulation goes on:
Subject to any such determination"—

that is to say, if they do not make a determination—
the names in each section shall be arranged either in street order, or in alphabetical order, or partly in one way and partly in another, according to the order adopted for the corresponding parts of the 1939 Register.
The local authority can therefore determine this matter. I have no doubt that generally speaking, the method adopted will be that which is most convenient for Parliamentary elections. The hon. Member also asked whether ladies should be described respectively as "Mrs." or "Miss," so that unfortunate accidents should not occur in married ladies being addressed as "Miss" or vice versa. I am afraid I cannot give any guarantee on that point. These Registers are to be made up from material supplied from the National Registration system.

Mr. Woodburn: Which has those particulars.

Mr. Peake: If it has those particulars, then they will be passed on. I am not at all sure that in every case persons are described in that way under their national registration.

Mr. Bellenger: A Miss may get married in the meantime.

Mr. Peake: It may be. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) raised a point or two on paragraph II, which deals with claims and objections. He said that, under the paragraph, witnesses could not be called, and he complained that counsel were debarred from appearing before the registration officer upon the decision of a claim or an objection. My answer to that is first that there is nothing whatever in the paragraph to prevent persons appearing and giving evidence. In fact, sub-paragraph (3) says:
On the consideration of an objection, the person making the objection and the person with respect to whom it is made, and any other person who appears to the registration officer to be interested, shall be entitled to appear and be heard.
I am told it would be quite out of the question for the registration officer, who is only seeking to get at the facts, to refuse to hear anybody who came forward and said they had useful information to give. With respect to the exclusion of counsel my hon. Friend, I think my hon. and learned Friend, may well have a


grievance, but it is not against these Regulations. It is against the Act of 1918, for ever since the passing of that Act counsel have been prevented from appearing on claims and objections.

Mr. G. Griffiths: And it was common sense too.

Mr. Peake: I am not saying whether it was common sense or not. I am only saying that my hon. and learned Friend has been excluded from these cases for 26 years.

Mr. G. Griffiths: His agent can appear instead.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend then went into the question of the mode of registration and of the voting of Service voters. I venture to point out that both these matters are dealt with in the principal Act of 1943, and do not arise on these Regulations. My hon. Friend then drew attention to Section 8 (2) of the principal Act, which states that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the Service Register unless there has been transmitted to the registration officer for that constituency, in any manner authorised by national registration regulations, and received by that officer, a declaration. Of course the Regulations which are intended to be made there are national registration Regulations, and deal only with the transmission of the declaration after it has been made, and my hon. Friend is misreading that Sub-section if he thinks that Regulations to be made under the Act, such as we now have before the House, are matters which prescribe whether or not the Service voter is entitled to be registered. That matter, and the method of registration, are laid down in the Act itself. I know hon. Members in many parts of the House are anxious about the operation of the system so far as Service voters are concerned, but I can assure them that these Regulations are in no way concerned with the complaints which hon. Members have. They are a separate issue, and if I had commented upon the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference I should have been going far beyond the province of the Regulations which are now before the House.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) complained, I think, that there was no provision for claims or objections

in regard to Service voters. That was quite deliberate, and I think that was provided for by the principal Act. It would, obviously, be wrong that anybody should be able to bring forward an objection to a Service registration, when the man principally concerned is serving in His Majesty's Forces overseas. If we are to protect the Service voter from objections in that way, we, obviously, cannot admit claims. The machinery of Service registration, whether hon. Members like it or not, is complete in itself, and claims and objections have been deliberately excluded, in the interests of Service voters.

Mr. Bellenger: Therefore, a man serving at home—and there will be a considerable number of them—even though he knows that his name is not on the Register, cannot make an objection.

Mr. Peake: He can raise the matter with his Service organisation if it comes to his knowledge that he has not been put on the Register, but nobody can take any objection to a Service registration.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: What about the case of a man overseas, who writes to his wife and says that he has applied to be placed on the Register, and she goes along and finds out that he has not been so placed? Surely there should be claims, without objections.

Mr. Peake: Such a case cannot arise, because, as the hon. Member for Barn- staple (Sir R. Acland) said, the Service Register is not going to be published until the 36th day after the initiation of the election.

Sir R. Acland: Is it not?

Mr. Peake: Certainly the Register is not to be published until the 36th day after the initiation of the election. I will look into the point as to whether lists of voters should be made available at an earlier date, but it is clear that the Register itself cannot be published until 17 days before polling.
My hon. Friend also asked, how was the registration officer to find out what was the relationship between the person holding the proxy, and the voter? The registration officers have to do the best they can in these matters, but, actually, the form of proxy will have to state what the relationship is, and there are penalties for false declarations in such matters.


I think I have dealt with the main points that hon. Members have raised. I will certainly look further into the point raised by the hon. Member for Barnstaple, as to the publication of Service lists, and into the possible point of an agent getting hold of copies of the Register, although the party itself has not selected its candidate. I am sure that the hon. Member's party will be deeply concerned, because I can well understand that they may not select their candidates until rather late in the day. I will go through the Debate very carefully, and if there is any point I have overlooked, I will write to hon. Members, and explain why the Regulations have been drawn as they have.

Mr. Mathers: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the agent having the opportunity of getting the Register before the candidate is appointed, he must remember that, when it comes to an election, there can only be the agent of a candidate, not the agent of a party.

Mr. Woodburn: I take it that the normal practice will be pursued in such a case, of recognising the ordinary agent?

Mr. Peake: I shall have to look into that point. It is one of some difficulty.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1944, dated 20th July, 1944, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Acts, 1943 and 1944, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 20th July, be approved.

RAILWAY CONTROL AGREEMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Sir John Mellor: I want to raise a few small, but, I think, important, points with regard to the financial provisions of the Railway Control Agreement, which was signed in September, 1941, and is still in force. I should, I think, disclose that I have a small and indirect private interest in railway stocks. I have received a very large number of representations from my constituents

upon this matter, but I think it only fair to say that I have received no representations whatsoever from the railway companies. I raise the matter entirely upon my own responsibility. I am trying, and I have been trying for some time, to probe into matters which the Minister has said have been the subject of confidential discussions with the railway companies, and I think, judging by the reticence of the chairmen of the main line railway companies at their annual meetings, it is fairly clear that the Government have effectively sealed their lips. Therefore, I have deliberately refrained from consulting the railway companies, or indeed, hon. Members of this House who happen to be railway directors, and I am sure that, in view of that explanation, they will acquit me of any discourtesy towards them. I have thought it was better to proceed entirely on the basis of what has already been published.
On 1st July an official statement appeared in the newspapers which covered the railway companies' request for better terms for their stockholders and the Minister's refusal of any revision of the agreement. That statement quoted the railway companies' Memorandum of 20th April, and, in that Memorandum, the chairmen insisted that it had been understood, at the time the agreement was entered into, that, should new circumstances of a major character arise, the financial provisions of the agreement might be re-opened. I propose to read the relevant passage. This is what the chairmen of the railway companies said:
The Minister will be aware that, in the original draft railway agreement, provision was made by which the Minister or the railway companies could -propose a revision of the arrangement for any cause of a major character, and, if agreed to by all parties, the arrangement should be revised. Accordingly, while a provision of this nature should have no legal significance, and was, for this reason, not embodied in the revised agreement, it was made clear during the course of the negotiations that the Government did not wish to depart from this understanding, as, if new circumstances arose, they might again require the agreement to be amended.
Then, the chairmen proceeded, in this Memorandum, to draw attention to the vastly increased traffic and more intensive use of their capital assets consequent upon the participation of the United States of America in the European war. The Min-


ister replied to that Memorandum by letter dated 26th June. He said this:
As my correspondence with Sir Ronald Matthews shows, the companies' acceptance of the fixed annual payment of the agreed amount was for the period of control.
The Minister says his "correspondence with Sir Ronald Matthews shows." I want to know very much what that correspondence does show, and I have been asking in vain for the last six months for its publication. I want to ask whether it was the Minister's intention to repudiate the understanding which the railway companies have alleged. If it was his intention, he did not do it in a very communicative form, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the truth about the alleged understanding.
Does he suggest that this was an invention of the railway companies? The Government had already obtained a revision for one Clause, and it is reasonable and indeed, probable, that the railway companies should expect to have been able to obtain a revision for another Clause. In refusing to discuss revision, although the legal position of the Government might be unassailable, in equity it is rather deplorable.
There is a further aspect to this matter to which I would like to invite attention. On 8th December, 1943, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary this Question:
Whether the financial provisions of the Railway Control Agreement were intended by the Government to represent a fair settlement on commercial principles or whether political considerations were involved.
He replied:
In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the provisions of the Railway Control Agreement constitute a fair consideration for the control and use of the railway company undertakings during the national emergency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1943; Vol. 395, C. 957.]
I want to know what he really means by "fair consideration." Does he mean fair consideration on business principles and, if not, on what principles does he rely? In the Memorandum of 20th April, the railway companies proceed to say:
The Minister will remember that, although the railway companies in the national interest accepted the revised Agreement as a war-time measure and without regard to the ordinary commercial considerations which would have to be taken into account in determining the amount of compensation to be paid for the use of the undertakings, either individually or collectively, under normal conditions, they at the same time made it clear that the

minimum guaranteed annual payment was the lowest that could be accepted without grave injustice to their proprietors.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister agrees that the railway companies accepted the revised Agreement without regard to ordinary commercial considerations. Does he agree with the proposition, because it does not seem that the railway companies' version is consistent with a business arrangement in any sense of the word? Does my hon. Friend contend that the new terms were in any sense a fair exchange for the old terms or were voluntarily accepted? It really would seem that the new terms were forced by political pressure down the throats of the railway companies and swallowed by them for fear that worse might be thrust upon them. The new terms were less favourable to the railway companies in almost any conceivable circumstances which could be imagined either then or since. The Agreement of February, 1940—the previous Agreement—provided for a Government guarantee of £40,000,000. That included the London Passenger Transport Board. But the Agreement of December, 1941—the one of which I am now complaining—provided an additional guarantee of £3,500,000 instead of the existing first charge of the same amount on the Pool. In 1941 the first charge of £3,500,000 was covered six times over by the earnings. Now for that very slight gain the railway companies sacrificed all claim to share in surplus profits and these surplus profits, in 1941, amounted to £21,000,000, and in 1943 to £60,000,000, which was in excess of the standard revenues to which they were entitled under the Railway Act of 1921.
Even so, those standard revenues were not as great as the substituted standard for E.P.T., which the railway companies would undoubtedly have enjoyed had they had the comparative luxury of being assessable to E.P.T. I think that all the junior stockholders of the railway companies have had a raw deal. The 78,000,000 Preferred Ordinary and Deferred stocks of the London and North-Eastern Railway have been deprived of all possibility of dividends for the duration of the war, and for at least one year after. They have exchanged the possibility, or even probability, of something for the certainty of nothing. That does not sound like a bargain freely made, and that is a further reason why I have been


pressing for the publication of this correspondence. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has objected to the publication on the ground, firstly, that it was confidential. Well, if it was confidential in the business sense of the word that can be disposed of by mutual agreement. Who insists on keeping this correspondence secret? Is it the Ministry, or is it the railway companies?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Presumably there was nothing in the correspondence that would prejudice the security of this country?

Sir J. Mellor: I was about to say that the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a Question from me, said it would be contrary to the public interest to publish the correspondence. What Departments object to its publication, because it is very hard to see how a purely financial arrangement come to in 1941 could possibly help the enemy in 1944? That seems altogether too far-fetched. If there is still a security objection can I have a definite promise now that this correspondence will be published as soon as the war is over? Control has been inevitable for the railways, I admit, but that is no reason why they should be treated with exceptional meanness. Here we have a case of poverty in the midst of plenty, because some of these railway stockholders are getting nothing at all, and cannot get anything under this Agreement, while the Government proceed to make gigantic profits out of their property. I know my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary desires to give me a full answer, so with those observations I will conclude.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I will do my best to answer the points that have been raised by the hon. Baronet who sits for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). I am afraid that in spite of his kindness I have not the time to do so as adequately as I would like. Nevertheless, as this has been a matter of considerable controversy outside, I want also to make one or two other points with which he did not deal. The first is the assertion that the railway companies accepted the 1941 Agreement under what is called "Government duress." That is a serious allegation, but it has been

roundly asserted in a pamphlet written by a certain Mr. Scott Adie, who has also been extremely active in writing to the Press. Mr. Scott Adie's pamphlet is entitled "The Scandal of the British Railways." It contains many statements which are grossly—I will not say scandalously—inaccurate and misleading. Let me deal with this allegation, that the Railway Agreement of 1941 was made under Government duress. I say without hesitation, there is no foundation for it whatever. Nothing of the kind has ever been maintained by those who negotiated the Agreement for the railways. Perhaps it will suffice if I quote what was said in this House when the Agreement was first debated in 1941 by my predecessor, my right hon. and gallant Friend who is now the Minister of Food. He said that the railway companies had agreed that——
A revision of the former arrangement is necessary"—
because of two Government decisions which had been made, and to allay the kind of doubts which have now arisen. My right hon. and gallant Friend went on to say:
I should like to emphasise that the agreement to revise the former arrangement was a voluntary matter and not imposed upon the railways.
My Noble Friend the Minister, who was primarily responsible for making the Agreement, will be very happy to give any other assurances that are required, but I hope that the words I have quoted from the speech of the Minister of Food will be generally accepted as quite convincing.
That brings me to the first point that has been made to-day by the bon. Baronet: If the Agreement could be revised in 1941 when the Government thought that revision was required, why cannot it be revised again when some of the stockholders think that revision is required again? Nobody, he says, believed in 1941 that the Agreement was going to turn out so favourably to the Government as in fact it has been; as the Government have made so big a profit, why cannot they give the stockholders a better deal? And the hon. Baronet quotes the Memorandum of the railway chairmen, in which they say that the Government made it clear that, "if new circumstances arose, they might again require the agreement to be amended." If that is so, he asks why does the right to ask for revision work in


one direction only? The answer is quite simple; I hope it will satisfy my hon. Friend. The "new circumstances" which might have required, or may require, a new arrangement had nothing whatever to do with the points which are dealt with in the present Agreement.
What my Noble Friend had in mind was the possibility of some new decision of major policy quite outside the Agreement, and affecting not merely the control period but the more distant future. That was why the revision Clause of the original Agreement, which gave either party the right to ask for revision, was deliberately and by agreement dropped. It was dropped because both parties felt that it was no longer appropriate in the new arrangement that was being made. I say with great confidence that none of the parties then held that either side would have a right to ask for a revision of the fixed sum, the "rental" of £43,000,000 on which the bargain was ultimately struck. As my Noble Friend said in his answer to the chairmen's Memorandum:
The companies' acceptance of that fixed annual payment … was for the period of control.
So was the Government's acceptance, and if things had turned out differently we should have been no more free to ask for the revision of that sum downwards than the companies are free to ask for a revision upwards of the compromise sum that was then agreed. I hope my hon. Friend will not think me unfair if I quote a statement made by the Chairman of the Great Western Railway 15 years ago. Dealing with this very matter he said that the new Agreement contained no provision under which the railways would be entitled to ask for revision. In any case, he said, although a good case might be made on commercial grounds for more generous treatment, there would be no justification for asking for the revision of an agreement——
… accepted as a war-time measure in the national interest with the full knowledge that the annual payment in no way represented the existing or potential capacity of the undertakings.
That was from "The Times" of 11th March, 1943.

Mr. Tinker: Then the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in saying it was 15 years ago?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sorry; I meant 15 months ago. I have another statement made by the Deputy-Chairman of the Great Western Railway, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Major Sir Edward Cadogan) on 9th March this year, in which he said:
My own personal view is that any approach to the Government now for revision would be premature and contrary to the spirit in which we accepted the agreement …

Sir J. Mellor: They did approach the Government notwithstanding that statement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: They put forward the request of some of their stockholders but the chairman whom I am quoting said that in his view it would be premature and contrary to the spirit in which the Agreement was originally accepted, and he was in very full possession of the facts.
I turn to the hon. Baronet's second point, namely, if I have understood him rightly, whether this fixed annual payment is even tolerably just. He made his point, if I may say so, with great moderation, and he quoted the statement in the Railway chairmen's Memorandum in which they explained why they had accepted the Agreement "as a war-time measure," and in which they went on to say that they had made it clear in 1941 that the sum they accepted was the least that could be accepted without grave injustice to their proprietors. He contrasted this with an answer which I gave him to a Question last December:
In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the provisions of the Railway Control Agreement constitute a fair consideration for the control and use of the railway company undertakings during the national emergency.
If I understood the hon. Baronet, he finds a conflict between my answer and the chairmen's statement. I tell him frankly that I find none. The Government are the guardians of the public purse; they had to make the best bargain, from the taxpayers' point of view, which the railway chairmen would voluntarily accept; they did so; they held then and they hold still that the resulting sum was "a fair consideration" for the control and use of the railway undertakings during the national emergency. What is this "fair consideration?" How does it compare with the pre-war profits of the railways?


Is it an appropriate remuneration during the period of a great war like this?
For the purpose of the present controversy the four main line railway companies must be separated from the London Passenger Transport Board. The four main line companies receive from controlled sources a fixed annual payment of £38,200,000. They receive from uncontrolled sources—their investments in road haulage undertakings, their interest in the railways of Northern Ireland, and so on—a further sum of £1,800,000—that sum has increased by £700,000 since 1930. Their net revenue under the Agreement is, therefore, £38,200,000 plus £1,800,000, a total of £40,000,000. I ventured to say the other day in answer to a supplementary question in the House, that this meant that the railways get a remuneration considerably above anything they earned in peace-time. One of our Press critics ventured to say that this was "bunk." His remark was really addressed, not at me, but at the late Sir Kingsley Wood, for, when Sir Kingsley Wood was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury wrote a letter in which they said—I am quoting:
that the annual payment exceeds by a substantial amount the average net revenue of the controlled undertakings in the period immediately before the war.
The critic, of course, had chosen for comparison the two best years out of the last ten—the two years in which railway net revenue was highest, 1929 and 1937. If I followed his method, and chose the two lowest years, I could show that the present payments are nearly 37 per cent. above what the railways earned in those two years. But the only reasonable plan is to take the average net revenue of the last ten years before the war, from 1929 to 1938; that average net revenue is £34,000,000. In other words, our Agreement gives the four main line companies £5,200,000 more than their average for the last ten years of peace—an increase of nearly 15 per cent. That increase must be viewed against the general background of Government policy throughout the war. With the agreement of all parties and in every branch of productive activity, the Government have consistently applied the principle that there should be a strict limitation of profits from the war. They have always excluded ordinary commercial considerations.

Sir J. Mellor: What about the substituted standards that they allow to industry?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a very hypothetical matter I cannot argue now. It is extremely doubtful whether on any standards they would come out better. But I submit with great confidence that the position of a great public service like this is quite different from that of an ordinary firm manufacturing munitions. It was because of this policy of which I am speaking that the Government fixed the sum of £38,200,000 and still think it just. Perhaps I may quote again from the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food. In arguing that in this Agreement, "we have done fairly by the shareholders" he also declared that the railways, in asking for the terms they got, were not "in any way acting as war profiteers." And he went on:
It was because they did not want to be in this position that they accepted this Agreement.
What was true in 1941 is true to-day. We must judge the fixed annual sum by the basic principle which the Government and the nation have accepted, and to which they still adhere.
It is sometimes argued that the Agreement bears with particular injustice on the holders of the junior railway stocks, which, for some reason which I do not understand, are alleged to be the property not of "big business interests," but of "little men." This view has evoked some sympathy. In fact, it is without foundation of any kind. Now, as before the war, the senior stocks—the pre-ordinary stocks—absorb £31,400,000 of the net revenue of £40,000,000. This left, in 1937—the best year since 1929—£6,500,000 for the junior stocks. Now the amount is £8,600,000, an increase of nearly 33 per cent.—this is taking the "equity consideration" above. That increase is reflected in the yield. It is, of course, true that two classes of L.N.E.R. stock, which together reach a nominal total of £78,600,000, receive no dividend under the Agreement. But they had received none for sixteen years before the Agreement was made. Let the House consider the other junior stocks: the L.N.E.R. 4 per cent. Second Preference for the four years 1935–38 averaged a dividend of 9/16 per cent. Under the Agreement they have averaged 2⅔ per


cent. I could give other figures to the same effect.
There are some people who hold that justice would not be done unless these junior stocks were now receiving the full dividend which would be payable, if the railway standard revenue were earned—and that would be, on some of them, a revenue of 8 per cent. They talk as if the Railways Act of 1921 had given the companies a legal right to a net revenue of £51,400,000 a year. Mr. Scott Adie says that under the Act the companies were entitled to retain "that sum," and he calls it "the correct and legal return" on the railways' capital.
This misleading language makes it necessary for me to recite some of the facts about the standard revenue. The Act of 1921 did not give the shareholders a legal right to that, or to any other sum. It set that sum as a target by reference to which rates and charges should be fixed by the Tribunal. That is a very different thing. Nor is that all. There are other facts which must be remembered. The target, the standard revenue, was fixed on the basis of the railways' net revenues in the year 1913. That year was the record year, the most prosperous year, in the whole of railway history. It was a year in which the labour costs of the railways were far lower than they have since become. It is now 31 years ago. Never once, since the Railway Act of 1921 was passed, has this standard revenue been earned. The Railway Tribunal and the railway companies recognised that it

could not be earned; they decided that an increase of rates and charges would bring in no more revenue.
Since the Act of 1921 was passed the whole economic basis of the railways has been profoundly changed by the growth in the competition of road transport, both for passengers and goods. Surely these facts are enough to show that my Noble Friend could not possibly take the standard revenue as a basis; that, indeed, the standard basis was quite irrelevant to the problem which he had to face; that if he had taken it as a basis, he would have admitted a claim for greatly enhanced profits as a result of the war.
There is one other point raised by the hon. Baronet with which I ought to deal. He has asked why my Noble Friend has not published, and is not now willing to publish, the documents which were exchanged, and the records of the discussions which took place, when this Agreement was drawn up. In answers to Parliamentary Questions, I have spoken of the security considerations that were involved. Those were valid answers, but I should not like to press the point at the present stage of the war. I would ask the hon. Baronet to consider the matter from another point of view——

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.